People v. Hidalgo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hidalgo

283 A.D.2d 154, 724 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4299

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

DecidedMay 1, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 283 A.D.2d 154 (People v. Hidalgo) 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. Hidalgo, 283 A.D.2d 154, 724 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4299 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peggy Bernheim, J.), rendered June 8, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes a valid waiver of defendant’s right to appeal (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909). This waiver forecloses defendant’s present claim that imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (People v Brathwaite, 263 AD2d 89, 92-93; People v La Mountain, 249 AD2d 584, 587, lv denied 92 NY2d 855; see also, People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825). In any event, such a claim requires preservation (see, People v Ingram, 67 NY2d 897, 899), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the sentence was not unconstitutional as applied to defendant (see, People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peggy Bernheim, J.), rendered June 8, 1999, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes a valid waiver of defendant’s right to appeal (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909). This waiver forecloses defendant’s present claim that imposition of the mandatory minimum sentence violated the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment (People v Brathwaite, 263 AD2d 89, 92-93; People v La Mountain, 249 AD2d 584, 587, lv denied 92 NY2d 855; see also, People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825). In any event, such a claim requires preservation (see, People v Ingram, 67 NY2d 897, 899), and we decline to review this unpreserved claim in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the sentence was not unconstitutional as applied to defendant (see, People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477). Concur — Sullivan, P. J., Mazzarelli, Ellerin, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

283 A.D.2d 154, 724 N.Y.S.2d 583, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hidalgo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack