People v. Kendall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kendall

159 A.D.2d 727

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

DecidedMarch 26, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 727 (People v. Kendall) 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. Kendall, 159 A.D.2d 727 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered September 7, 1988, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve the issue of an alleged sentence promise for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment on the ground that the court failed to comply with that promise (see, CPL 470.05; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636).

In any event, a review of the record shows that a recommendation against deportation of the defendant was not part of the plea agreement. Since the defendant received the sentence which had been promised, he should not now be heard to complain that it is excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Chetta, J.), rendered September 7, 1988, convicting him of rape in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to preserve the issue of an alleged sentence promise for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment on the ground that the court failed to comply with that promise (see, CPL 470.05; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636).

In any event, a review of the record shows that a recommendation against deportation of the defendant was not part of the plea agreement. Since the defendant received the sentence which had been promised, he should not now be heard to complain that it is excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Brown, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 727, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kendall-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack