People v. Haffner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haffner

167 A.D.2d 652, 563 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13320

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 167 A.D.2d 652 (People v. Haffner) 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. Haffner, 167 A.D.2d 652, 563 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Ceresia, Jr., J.), rendered January 17, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the third degree.

The sentence imposed, a 2Vá-to-7-year prison term, was part of the plea bargain made with defendant. Although given the opportunity to do so, neither defendant nor his counsel indicated that they had any comments to make on factors affecting sentence. Therefore, defendant’s right to a consideration of his youthful offender status was waived (see, People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905; People v Quesnel, 115 AD2d 802). In any event, given defendant’s prior history and the nature of the crime, there is no indication before us that such treatment was warranted (see, People v Sneed, 116 AD2d 676).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County (Ceresia, Jr., J.), rendered January 17, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the third degree.

The sentence imposed, a 2Vá-to-7-year prison term, was part of the plea bargain made with defendant. Although given the opportunity to do so, neither defendant nor his counsel indicated that they had any comments to make on factors affecting sentence. Therefore, defendant’s right to a consideration of his youthful offender status was waived (see, People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905; People v Quesnel, 115 AD2d 802). In any event, given defendant’s prior history and the nature of the crime, there is no indication before us that such treatment was warranted (see, People v Sneed, 116 AD2d 676).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Kane, Weiss, Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 652, 563 N.Y.S.2d 686, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-haffner-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack