People v. Filiey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Filiey

256 A.D.2d 1208, 682 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14372

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

DecidedDecember 31, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 256 A.D.2d 1208 (People v. Filiey) 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. Filiey, 256 A.D.2d 1208, 682 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14372 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10, his contention that the plea allocution was insufficient has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). Nor does defendant’s plea allocution qualify for the “rare case” exception to the preservation doctrine (People v Lopez, supra, at 666; see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839).

We conclude that defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Because defendant did not move to withdraw his plea under CPL 220.60 (3) or to vacate the judgment of conviction under CPL 440.10, his contention that the plea allocution was insufficient has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665). Nor does defendant’s plea allocution qualify for the “rare case” exception to the preservation doctrine (People v Lopez, supra, at 666; see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839).

We conclude that defendant’s sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present— Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Balio and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

256 A.D.2d 1208, 682 N.Y.S.2d 365, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14372, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-filiey-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack