People v. Greenridge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Greenridge

208 A.D.2d 764, 618 N.Y.S.2d 540

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 208 A.D.2d 764 (People v. Greenridge) 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. Greenridge, 208 A.D.2d 764, 618 N.Y.S.2d 540 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), rendered March 16, 1993, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender on the ground that the procedures set forth in CPL 400.21 were not followed. Based upon our review of the record, including the transcript of the proceedings held [765]*765on February 23, 1993, we find that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of CPL 400.21 (see, People v Provost, 76 AD2d 944; see also, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 20). In addition, since the defendant received the promised sentence, he cannot now complain that it was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, 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 Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Leis, J.), rendered March 16, 1993, convicting him of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was improperly adjudicated a second felony offender on the ground that the procedures set forth in CPL 400.21 were not followed. Based upon our review of the record, including the transcript of the proceedings held [765]*765on February 23, 1993, we find that there was sufficient compliance with the requirements of CPL 400.21 (see, People v Provost, 76 AD2d 944; see also, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 20). In addition, since the defendant received the promised sentence, he cannot now complain that it was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Lawrence, Copertino, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

208 A.D.2d 764, 618 N.Y.S.2d 540, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-greenridge-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack