People v. Downing
This text of 2024 NY Slip Op 05807 (People v. Downing) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
| People v Downing |
| 2024 NY Slip Op 05807 |
| Decided on November 20, 2024 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on November 20, 2024 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
LARA J. GENOVESI
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.
2023-05271
v
Robert Downing, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 70076/23)
James D. Licata, New City, NY (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kevin F. Russo, J.), rendered April 7, 2023, convicting him of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the County Court improperly imposed a greater sentence than it had promised is not preserved for appellate review, as he neither objected to the sentence on that ground nor moved to vacate his plea (see People v Martin, 151 AD3d 753, 753; People v Carrasquillo, 133 AD3d 774, 774). In any event, failure to appear on a scheduled sentencing date in violation of a plea agreement may constitute a basis to impose an enhanced sentence (see People v Figgins, 87 NY2d 840; People v Pereyra, 169 AD3d 719, 719; People v Diaz, 146 AD3d 803, 805). Under the particular circumstances of this case, the court providently exercised its discretion in enhancing the defendant's sentence (see People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712).
The enhanced sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
DUFFY, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, GENOVESI and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 NY Slip Op 05807, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-downing-nyappdiv-2024.