People v. Eddie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Eddie

44 A.D.3d 413, 843 N.Y.S.2d 64

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedOctober 11, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.3d 413 (People v. Eddie) 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.

Bluebook

People v. Eddie, 44 A.D.3d 413, 843 N.Y.S.2d 64 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered April 1, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. For the reasons stated in our decision in People v Lemos (34 AD3d 343 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]), we find unpreserved defendant’s argument that the court unlawfully imposed a mandatory surcharge and fees when it did so only in writing, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it without merit. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Lewis Bart Stone, J.), rendered April 1, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3½ to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Regardless of whether defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. For the reasons stated in our decision in People v Lemos (34 AD3d 343 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 924 [2007]), we find unpreserved defendant’s argument that the court unlawfully imposed a mandatory surcharge and fees when it did so only in writing, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review it, we would find it without merit. Concur— Andrias, J.P., Friedman, Williams, Buckley and Sweeny, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.3d 413, 843 N.Y.S.2d 64, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-eddie-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack