People v. Inniss
88 A.D.3d 741, 930 N.Y.2d 469
Opinion
The defendant’s contentions raised in point one of his brief are partially unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [742]*742[2]). In any event, those contentions do not warrant reversal (see People v Lewis, 48 AD3d 483, 484 [2008]; People v Wright, 40 AD3d 1021 [2007]; see also People v Singh, 299 AD2d 498, 499 [2002]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.E, Dickerson, Leventhal and Lott, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Inniss, 88 A.D.3d 741, 930 N.Y.2d 469 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
88 A.D.3d 741 (People v. Inniss) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Wright
40 A.D.3d 1021 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Lewis
48 A.D.3d 483 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Singh
299 A.D.2d 498 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)