People v. Harriott

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harriott

217 A.D.2d 423, 629 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7592

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 217 A.D.2d 423 (People v. Harriott) 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. Harriott, 217 A.D.2d 423, 629 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered March 13, 1991, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, and, sentencing him to a term of 21h to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly enhanced his sentence following his arrest for a new crime because it never warned him that he faced sentence enhancement on that basis is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, not having been raised before the sentencing court (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find it belied by the plea minutes. In view of defendant’s substantial criminal record and the seriousness of the instant crime, we find the sentence to be appropriate. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Joseph Fisch, J.), rendered March 13, 1991, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the first degree, and, sentencing him to a term of 21h to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the court improperly enhanced his sentence following his arrest for a new crime because it never warned him that he faced sentence enhancement on that basis is unpreserved for appellate review as a matter of law, not having been raised before the sentencing court (CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. If we were to review it, we would find it belied by the plea minutes. In view of defendant’s substantial criminal record and the seriousness of the instant crime, we find the sentence to be appropriate. Concur—Wallach, J. P., Kupferman, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

217 A.D.2d 423, 629 N.Y.S.2d 36, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harriott-nyappdiv-1995.