People v. Haynes

284 A.D.2d 973, 726 N.Y.S.2d 902, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5822
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Haynes. Read the opinion of the Court — 251 A.D.2d 595

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

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).

284 A.D.2d 973 (People v. Haynes) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Hidalgo
698 N.E.2d 46 (New York Court of Appeals, 1998)
People v. Callahan
80 N.Y.2d 273 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)