People v. Kinslow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kinslow

109 A.D.2d 803, 486 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47303

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 109 A.D.2d 803 (People v. Kinslow) 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. Kinslow, 109 A.D.2d 803, 486 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47303 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), [804]*804rendered March 25, 1983, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Upon a review of the record we find that defendant’s plea of guilty was knowingly and intelligently made (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 18-19; People v Modica, 100 AD2d 559, mod on other grounds 64 NY2d 828) and that it was not the product of coercion (People v Lowrance, 41 NY2d 303; People v Modica, supra). It is clear that defendant, a second felony offender, is criminally experienced and “knowing and knowledgeable in the ways of the criminal law” (People v Pearson, 55 AD2d 685, 686; see also, People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067).

Moreover, there is no merit to defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 70.06, the second felony offender statute. This court has repeatedly stated that the mandatory sentencing scheme under that statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (see, People v Vasquez, 104 AD2d 1012; People v Cates, 104 AD2d 895; People v Bryant, 47 AD2d 51).

Finally, we have reviewed defendant’s other contentions, and find them to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), [804]*804rendered March 25, 1983, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

Upon a review of the record we find that defendant’s plea of guilty was knowingly and intelligently made (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 18-19; People v Modica, 100 AD2d 559, mod on other grounds 64 NY2d 828) and that it was not the product of coercion (People v Lowrance, 41 NY2d 303; People v Modica, supra). It is clear that defendant, a second felony offender, is criminally experienced and “knowing and knowledgeable in the ways of the criminal law” (People v Pearson, 55 AD2d 685, 686; see also, People v Nixon, 21 NY2d 338, 353, cert denied sub nom. Robinson v New York, 393 US 1067).

Moreover, there is no merit to defendant’s challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 70.06, the second felony offender statute. This court has repeatedly stated that the mandatory sentencing scheme under that statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (see, People v Vasquez, 104 AD2d 1012; People v Cates, 104 AD2d 895; People v Bryant, 47 AD2d 51).

Finally, we have reviewed defendant’s other contentions, and find them to be without merit. O’Connor, J. P., Rubin, Lawrence and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.2d 803, 486 N.Y.S.2d 317, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47303, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-kinslow-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack