People v. Hampton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hampton

275 A.D.2d 836, 713 N.Y.S.2d 245, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9329

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 836 (People v. Hampton) 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. Hampton, 275 A.D.2d 836, 713 N.Y.S.2d 245, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9329 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered June 28, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of a two-count indictment. Although defendant failed to appear at his first scheduled sentencing allegedly due to a seizure, he nevertheless was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 3 to 6 years at a subsequently rescheduled sentencing.

We reject defendant’s contention that his physical condition, allegedly resulting from a seizure a month earlier, impaired his ability to understand the sentencing proceeding. On the contrary, the record establishes that defendant’s behavior at sentencing was appropriate. Defendant duly responded to County Court’s inquiry regarding his status as a second felony offender and also advocated for a more lenient sentence. In view of the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s failure to order a competency hearing (see, People v Planty, 238 AD2d 806, 807, lv denied 89 NY2d 1098). Furthermore, we reject defendant’s contention that he was unaware of the consequence of being adjudicated a second felony offender.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, 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 Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered June 28, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of a two-count indictment. Although defendant failed to appear at his first scheduled sentencing allegedly due to a seizure, he nevertheless was sentenced as a second felony offender in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 3 to 6 years at a subsequently rescheduled sentencing.

We reject defendant’s contention that his physical condition, allegedly resulting from a seizure a month earlier, impaired his ability to understand the sentencing proceeding. On the contrary, the record establishes that defendant’s behavior at sentencing was appropriate. Defendant duly responded to County Court’s inquiry regarding his status as a second felony offender and also advocated for a more lenient sentence. In view of the foregoing, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s failure to order a competency hearing (see, People v Planty, 238 AD2d 806, 807, lv denied 89 NY2d 1098). Furthermore, we reject defendant’s contention that he was unaware of the consequence of being adjudicated a second felony offender.

Crew III, J. P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 836, 713 N.Y.S.2d 245, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9329, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hampton-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack