People v. Henriquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Henriquez

291 A.D.2d 290, 737 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1761

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 291 A.D.2d 290 (People v. Henriquez) 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. Henriquez, 291 A.D.2d 290, 737 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered December 14, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 1, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly enhanced defendant’s promised sentence. The plea minutes establish that the court clearly imposed a condition prohibiting defendant from committing any new crimes or from being rearrested while awaiting sentencing, and warned him that he would receive an enhanced sentence upon violation of that condition. Contrary to defendant’s [291]*291contention, we find that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry into the validity of his new arrest, which had resulted in an indictment (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702; People v Pinkston, 287 AD2d 294). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Herbert Altman, J.), rendered December 14, 2000, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of 4 to 12 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about March 1, 2001, which denied defendant’s motion to vacate judgment, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly enhanced defendant’s promised sentence. The plea minutes establish that the court clearly imposed a condition prohibiting defendant from committing any new crimes or from being rearrested while awaiting sentencing, and warned him that he would receive an enhanced sentence upon violation of that condition. Contrary to defendant’s [291]*291contention, we find that the court conducted a sufficient inquiry into the validity of his new arrest, which had resulted in an indictment (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702; People v Pinkston, 287 AD2d 294). Concur — Nardelli, J.P., Tom, Mazzarelli, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 A.D.2d 290, 737 N.Y.S.2d 293, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1761, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henriquez-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack