People v. Fitzgerald

249 A.D.2d 630, 671 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3895
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 1998
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 249 A.D.2d 630 (People v. Fitzgerald) 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. Fitzgerald, 249 A.D.2d 630, 671 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3895 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Saratoga County (Scarano, Jr., J.), rendered August 19, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Following the imposition of the sentence upon defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree, County Court, pursuant to the Sex Offender Registration Act (hereinafter Megan’s Law, Correction Law art 6-C), conducted a risk level determination hearing, designating defendant a level two sex offender. Defendant now appeals from the judgment of conviction, intending to challenge the constitutionality of Megan’s Law. On appeal from a judgment of conviction we may consider and determine any question of law or issue of fact arising from the underlying criminal proceeding (CPL 470.15 [1]). The application of this statute here precludes our consideration of the constitutionality of Megan’s Law on this appeal since the risk level determination was not part of the criminal proceeding (see, People v Stevens, 91 NY2d 270). We further note there is no statutory right of appeal from a risk level determination (supra).

Therefore, inasmuch as the record discloses that defendant entered a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty and was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement, we shall affirm the judgment and grant defense counsel’s application for leave to withdraw (see, People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, lv denied 67 NY2d 650).

Mikoll, J. P., Crew III, White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and application to be relieved of assignment granted.

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

Related

People v. Holland
270 A.D.2d 718 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Clark
261 A.D.2d 97 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2000)
People v. Grice
254 A.D.2d 710 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
249 A.D.2d 630, 671 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3895, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fitzgerald-nyappdiv-1998.