People v. Fishman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Fishman

14 A.D.3d 411, 787 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 472

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 14 A.D.3d 411 (People v. Fishman) 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. Fishman, 14 A.D.3d 411, 787 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 472 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. Seewald, J.), rendered September 6, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8V2 to 17 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses his claim that the trial court failed to exercise its sentencing discretion (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]; People v Diaz, 304 AD2d 468 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 561 [2003]). Were we to conclude otherwise, we would find this claim to be unpreserved and unavailing. Even if we were to conclude that the court mistakenly believed that it had no discretion to impose a lower sentence, there would be no need to remand for resentencing because the court expressed no reservations about the agreed-upon sentence (id.).

The appeal waiver also forecloses defendant’s excessive sentence claim, and if we were to find otherwise, we would perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Robert G. Seewald, J.), rendered September 6, 2001, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 8V2 to 17 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses his claim that the trial court failed to exercise its sentencing discretion (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273 [1992]; People v Diaz, 304 AD2d 468 [2003], lv denied 100 NY2d 561 [2003]). Were we to conclude otherwise, we would find this claim to be unpreserved and unavailing. Even if we were to conclude that the court mistakenly believed that it had no discretion to impose a lower sentence, there would be no need to remand for resentencing because the court expressed no reservations about the agreed-upon sentence (id.).

The appeal waiver also forecloses defendant’s excessive sentence claim, and if we were to find otherwise, we would perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Buckley, P.J., Tom, Andrias, Marlow and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 A.D.3d 411, 787 N.Y.S.2d 866, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 472, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fishman-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack