People v. Etkin

277 A.D.2d 599, 714 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11318
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 9, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 277 A.D.2d 599 (People v. Etkin) 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. Etkin, 277 A.D.2d 599, 714 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Peters, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, of Schenectady County (Eidens, J.), rendered January 24, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of bribing a witness.

In April 1998, defendant was indicted on a single count of bribing a witness, a class D felony. He subsequently entered a plea of guilty to the indictment pursuant to a plea bargain which included a five-year sentence, with a maximum possible jail time of six months and the remainder of the five years on [600]*600probation. As part of the plea bargain, defendant, who was represented by counsel, knowingly and voluntarily executed an unrestricted waiver of the right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant to three months in jail and the remainder of the five-year period on probation. Defendant appeals from the sentence.

Although defendant’s argument includes a claim that the prosecutor violated a promise to recommend only probation at sentencing, it is undisputed that the promise was conditional and one of the conditions, to which defendant knowingly and voluntarily agreed, was not satisfied. The remainder of defendant’s argument concerns the severity of the sentence, an ■, issue encompassed by defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737; People v Kwiatkowski, 263 AD2d 552, lv denied 93 NY2d 1021). In any event, we see no abuse of discretion in County Court’s conclusion that some jail time should be imposed and we find no extraordinary circumstances which would warrant a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice.

Crew III, J. P., Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and matter remitted to the County Court of Schenectady County for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

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

Related

People v. Etkin
284 A.D.2d 579 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)
People v. Espino
279 A.D.2d 798 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
277 A.D.2d 599, 714 N.Y.S.2d 841, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-etkin-nyappdiv-2000.