People v. Forster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Forster

186 A.D.2d 817, 589 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12231

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 186 A.D.2d 817 (People v. Forster) 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. Forster, 186 A.D.2d 817, 589 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12231 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered March 25, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to move prior to the imposition of sentence to withdraw his plea (see, People v McVay, 148 AD2d 474). In any event, a review of the plea allocution reveals that since the [818]*818defendant stood to "profit” from the sale of cocaine to the undercover police officer in that the officer promised to allow the defendant to use some of the purchased drugs, it is clear that the defendant was acting out of an independent desire to promote the transaction, and not as a mere extension of the buyer (see, People v Gilliard, 177 AD2d 707). Accordingly, the plea allocution was factually sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

The defendant pleaded guilty with the full understanding that he would receive the sentence that was actually imposed. Thus, he will not now be heard to complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). In any event, the defendant received the minimum sentence possible. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), rendered March 25, 1991, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of his plea allocution is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant failed to move prior to the imposition of sentence to withdraw his plea (see, People v McVay, 148 AD2d 474). In any event, a review of the plea allocution reveals that since the [818]*818defendant stood to "profit” from the sale of cocaine to the undercover police officer in that the officer promised to allow the defendant to use some of the purchased drugs, it is clear that the defendant was acting out of an independent desire to promote the transaction, and not as a mere extension of the buyer (see, People v Gilliard, 177 AD2d 707). Accordingly, the plea allocution was factually sufficient to support the defendant’s conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

The defendant pleaded guilty with the full understanding that he would receive the sentence that was actually imposed. Thus, he will not now be heard to complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). In any event, the defendant received the minimum sentence possible. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Ritter and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 817, 589 N.Y.S.2d 498, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12231, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-forster-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack