People v. Fraisar
This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 4713 (People v. Fraisar) 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.
Opinion
| People v Fraisar |
| 2017 NY Slip Op 04713 |
| Decided on June 9, 2017 |
| Appellate Division, Fourth Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on June 9, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, CURRAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ.
794 KA 15-01682
v
PHILLIP M. FRAISAR, ALSO KNOWN AS PHILLIP M. A. FRAISAR, ALSO KNOWN AS PHILLIP FRAISAR, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (TIMOTHY P. MURPHY OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (SHIRLEY A. GORMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered September 16, 2015. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 265.03 [3]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered. We reject that contention (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). Defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal, however, does not preclude him from challenging the severity of his sentence, inasmuch as "the record establishes that defendant waived his right to appeal before County Court advised him of the potential periods of imprisonment that could be imposed" (People v Mingo, 38 AD3d 1270, 1271). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered: June 9, 2017
Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2017 NY Slip Op 4713, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fraisar-nyappdiv-2017.