People v. Haynes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Haynes

284 A.D.2d 973, 726 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5822

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 973 (People v. Haynes) 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. Haynes, 284 A.D.2d 973, 726 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The waiver by defendant of his right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). While the waiver does not encompass his contention that the sentence is illegal (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280), that contention is without merit. The sentence of 2 to 4 years imposed upon the conviction of burglary in the third degree, a class D felony (Penal Law § 140.20), is legal (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [d]; [4] [b]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, County Court properly declined to impose a sentence of parole supervision pursuant to CPL 410.91; as the court properly determined, defendant is not an “eligible defendant” (see, CPL 410.91 [2]), nor did the People consent to a sentence of parole supervision (see, CPL 410.91 [4]). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Fahey, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The waiver by defendant of his right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see, People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). While the waiver does not encompass his contention that the sentence is illegal (see, People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280), that contention is without merit. The sentence of 2 to 4 years imposed upon the conviction of burglary in the third degree, a class D felony (Penal Law § 140.20), is legal (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [d]; [4] [b]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, County Court properly declined to impose a sentence of parole supervision pursuant to CPL 410.91; as the court properly determined, defendant is not an “eligible defendant” (see, CPL 410.91 [2]), nor did the People consent to a sentence of parole supervision (see, CPL 410.91 [4]). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Fahey, J. — Burglary, 3rd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 973, 726 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-haynes-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack