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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 19, 2002·Published·Cited by 1 cases

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] contention, 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] contention, 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.

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

291 A.D.2d 290 (People v. Henriquez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related