People v. Finch

96 A.D.3d 1697, 946 N.Y.S.2d 918, 947 N.Y.S.2d 352
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Finch. Read the opinion of the Court — 96 A.D.3d 1485

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Jeffrey R. Merrill, A.J.), rendered January 27, 2009. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Although defendant did not waive the right to appeal and thus his challenge to the severity of the sentence is properly before us (see [1698]*1698generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]), we nevertheless conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Centra, J.P., Fahey, Peradotto, Carni and Sconiers, JJ.

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

People v. Finch, 96 A.D.3d 1697, 946 N.Y.S.2d 918, 947 N.Y.S.2d 352 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

96 A.D.3d 1697 (People v. Finch) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Hidalgo
698 N.E.2d 46 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)