People v. Haymer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haymer

237 A.D.2d 304, 655 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2104

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 3, 1997·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered December 7, 1995, convicting him of 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’s contention that the court erred in imposing the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee (Penal Law § 60.35 [1]) because these were not discussed as part of the plea agreement is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, 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 County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered December 7, 1995, convicting him of 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’s contention that the court erred in imposing the mandatory surcharge and crime victim assistance fee (Penal Law § 60.35 [1]) because these were not discussed as part of the plea agreement is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Sullivan, Altman and McGinity, JJ., concur.

People v. Haymer, 237 A.D.2d 304, 655 N.Y.S.2d 393, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2104 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

237 A.D.2d 304 (People v. Haymer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related