People v. Hillie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hillie

281 A.D.2d 956, 722 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2763

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

DecidedMarch 21, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 281 A.D.2d 956 (People v. Hillie) 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. Hillie, 281 A.D.2d 956, 722 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2763 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The contention of defendant that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender is unpreserved for our review (see, People v Perez, 245 AD2d 143, lv denied 91 NY2d 944; see also, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v James [Adolphus], 159 AD2d 723). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit. Defendant contends that he did not controvert the allegations in the predicate felony statement because the People had indicated to defense counsel that they would withdraw their consent to the plea agreement if defendant were not sentenced as a second felony offender. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People are entitled to withdraw their consent to a plea agreement if the defendant is to be sentenced to a lesser sentence than that bargained for (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 307). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, 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 contention of defendant that he was improperly sentenced as a second felony offender is unpreserved for our review (see, People v Perez, 245 AD2d 143, lv denied 91 NY2d 944; see also, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v James [Adolphus], 159 AD2d 723). In any event, we conclude that defendant’s contention is without merit. Defendant contends that he did not controvert the allegations in the predicate felony statement because the People had indicated to defense counsel that they would withdraw their consent to the plea agreement if defendant were not sentenced as a second felony offender. Contrary to defendant’s contention, the People are entitled to withdraw their consent to a plea agreement if the defendant is to be sentenced to a lesser sentence than that bargained for (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 307). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Erie County, Wolfgang, J. — Criminal Possession Controlled Substance, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Hayes, Hurlbutt, Scudder and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 956, 722 N.Y.S.2d 842, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2763, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hillie-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack