People v. Lampack

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lampack

135 A.D.2d 654, 522 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52591

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

DecidedDecember 14, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 135 A.D.2d 654 (People v. Lampack) 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. Lampack, 135 A.D.2d 654, 522 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52591 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Patsalos, J.), rendered March 12, 1985, convicting him of attempted sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved the issue of the propriety of his plea bargain for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, a review of the record demonstrates that no condition that he undergo or continue sex-offender drug treatment was imposed at the time of sentencing. Rather, the defendant received the sentence for which he had bargained (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816) which was the minimum indeterminate term of imprisonment permissible (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [2] [a]; [3] [b]; [4]). Man[655]*655gano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, 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 County Court, Orange County (Patsalos, J.), rendered March 12, 1985, convicting him of attempted sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved the issue of the propriety of his plea bargain for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, a review of the record demonstrates that no condition that he undergo or continue sex-offender drug treatment was imposed at the time of sentencing. Rather, the defendant received the sentence for which he had bargained (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816) which was the minimum indeterminate term of imprisonment permissible (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [2] [a]; [3] [b]; [4]). Man[655]*655gano, J. P., Brown, Lawrence, Weinstein and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

135 A.D.2d 654, 522 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 52591, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lampack-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack