People v. Ippolito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ippolito

242 A.D.2d 880, 662 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10430

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

DecidedSeptember 30, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 242 A.D.2d 880 (People v. Ippolito) 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. Ippolito, 242 A.D.2d 880, 662 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his sentence was illegally imposed because County Court denied his request for an adjournment to consider whether to withdraw his guilty plea after the previously imposed sentence was found to violate the Penal Law (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]). The determination whether to grant an adjournment of

[881]*881sentencing proceedings rests within the sound discretion of the court and, from our review of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request (see, People v Legault, 180 AD2d 912, 913, lv denied 79 NY2d 1051; People v Payne, 176 AD2d 827, lv denied 79 NY2d 862). Although the court refused to grant the adjournment, the court informed defense counsel prior to sentencing that it would entertain a motion to vacate the plea and sentence but defendant never availed himself of that opportunity (see, People v Tubbs, 157 AD2d 915, 916, lv denied 76 NY2d 744; cf., People v West, 80 AD2d 680, 681).

The remaining contentions of defendant were waived by his voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Saunders, 190 AD2d 1092, lv denied 81 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Seneca County Court, Bender, J.—Attempted Forgery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his sentence was illegally imposed because County Court denied his request for an adjournment to consider whether to withdraw his guilty plea after the previously imposed sentence was found to violate the Penal Law (see, Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]). The determination whether to grant an adjournment of

[881]*881sentencing proceedings rests within the sound discretion of the court and, from our review of the record, we conclude that the court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant’s request (see, People v Legault, 180 AD2d 912, 913, lv denied 79 NY2d 1051; People v Payne, 176 AD2d 827, lv denied 79 NY2d 862). Although the court refused to grant the adjournment, the court informed defense counsel prior to sentencing that it would entertain a motion to vacate the plea and sentence but defendant never availed himself of that opportunity (see, People v Tubbs, 157 AD2d 915, 916, lv denied 76 NY2d 744; cf., People v West, 80 AD2d 680, 681).

The remaining contentions of defendant were waived by his voluntary, knowing and intelligent waiver of the right to appeal (see, People v Moissett, 76 NY2d 909; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1; People v Saunders, 190 AD2d 1092, lv denied 81 NY2d 1019). (Appeal from Judgment of Seneca County Court, Bender, J.—Attempted Forgery, 2nd Degree.) Present—Denman, P. J., Hayes, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

242 A.D.2d 880, 662 N.Y.S.2d 881, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ippolito-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack