People v. Hale

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hale

268 A.D.2d 691, 700 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 240

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 691 (People v. Hale) 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. Hale, 268 A.D.2d 691, 700 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 240 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered November 13, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree.

Defendant waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree in satisfaction of a superior court information. County Court made no commitment as to sentencing although defense counsel and the prosecutor jointly recommended that defendant receive a sentence of restitution, six months in jail and five years probation. Upon reviewing the presentence report, County Court imposed an indeterminate prison sentence of 1 to 4 years along with restitution and an order of protection in favor of the victim. Defendant now argues that this sentence was harsh and excessive.

[692]*692Inasmuch as defendant waived his right to appeal as part of a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty, this issue has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Buchanan, 236 AD2d 741, lv denied 89 NY2d 1032). Nevertheless, were we to reach it, we would find no evidence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the sentence imposed in the interest of justice given the underlying circumstances detailed in the record (see, People v Wright, 233 AD2d 618).

Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered November 13, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree.

Defendant waived his right to appeal and pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree in satisfaction of a superior court information. County Court made no commitment as to sentencing although defense counsel and the prosecutor jointly recommended that defendant receive a sentence of restitution, six months in jail and five years probation. Upon reviewing the presentence report, County Court imposed an indeterminate prison sentence of 1 to 4 years along with restitution and an order of protection in favor of the victim. Defendant now argues that this sentence was harsh and excessive.

[692]*692Inasmuch as defendant waived his right to appeal as part of a knowing, voluntary and intelligent plea of guilty, this issue has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Buchanan, 236 AD2d 741, lv denied 89 NY2d 1032). Nevertheless, were we to reach it, we would find no evidence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the sentence imposed in the interest of justice given the underlying circumstances detailed in the record (see, People v Wright, 233 AD2d 618).

Peters, J. P., Spain, Carpinello, Graffeo and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

268 A.D.2d 691, 700 N.Y.S.2d 773, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 240, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hale-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack