People v. Foli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Foli

145 A.D.3d 1322, 42 N.Y.S.3d 871

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

DecidedDecember 22, 2016

Docket106637

StatusPublished

This text of 145 A.D.3d 1322 (People v. Foli) 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. Foli, 145 A.D.3d 1322, 42 N.Y.S.3d 871 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

*1323 Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Keene, J.), rendered December 16, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

In satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. He was thereafter sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to three years of probation. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant’s challenges to the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the effectiveness of his counsel have not been preserved for our review inasmuch as the record does not disclose that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Constantopoules, 141 AD3d 942, 943 [2016]; People v Beverly, 140 AD3d 1400, 1401 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 927 [2016]). Moreover, the exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt (see People v Maldonado, 140 AD3d 1530, 1530 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1029 [2016]; People v Hernandez, 140 AD3d 1521, 1522 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 971 [2016]). Defendant’s further claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive is unpersuasive. The sentence imposed was consistent with the terms of the plea agreement and allowed defendant to avoid potential jail time. The fact that his codefendants may have received lesser sentences does not establish that the sentence he received was unduly severe (see People v Morrison, 71 AD3d 1228, 1230 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 754 [2010]; People v Boyd, 26 AD3d 534, 534 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 752 [2006]). We find no extraordinary circumstances or any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]).

Garry, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

*1323 Peters, P.J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Keene, J.), rendered December 16, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree.

In satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree. He was thereafter sentenced, in accordance with the plea agreement, to three years of probation. Defendant now appeals.

Initially, defendant’s challenges to the voluntariness of his guilty plea and the effectiveness of his counsel have not been preserved for our review inasmuch as the record does not disclose that he made an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v Constantopoules, 141 AD3d 942, 943 [2016]; People v Beverly, 140 AD3d 1400, 1401 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 927 [2016]). Moreover, the exception to the preservation rule is inapplicable here as defendant did not make any statements during the plea colloquy that cast doubt upon his guilt (see People v Maldonado, 140 AD3d 1530, 1530 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1029 [2016]; People v Hernandez, 140 AD3d 1521, 1522 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 971 [2016]). Defendant’s further claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive is unpersuasive. The sentence imposed was consistent with the terms of the plea agreement and allowed defendant to avoid potential jail time. The fact that his codefendants may have received lesser sentences does not establish that the sentence he received was unduly severe (see People v Morrison, 71 AD3d 1228, 1230 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 754 [2010]; People v Boyd, 26 AD3d 534, 534 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 752 [2006]). We find no extraordinary circumstances or any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]).

Garry, Devine, Mulvey and Aarons, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.3d 1322, 42 N.Y.S.3d 871, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-foli-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack