People v. Lanzara

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lanzara

59 A.D.3d 936, 873 N.Y.S.2d 399

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 6, 2009·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a [937] judgment of the Lewis County Court (Charles C. Merrell, J.), rendered January 12, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in imposing a fine without conducting a hearing to determine his ability to pay. That contention is encompassed by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see generally People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Horton, 256 AD2d 1105 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 972 [1999]). In any event, “appellate challenges to the procedures utilized in determining and imposing sentence are forfeited if they are not raised in a timely manner before the trial court” (People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]), and here defendant forfeited that challenge by failing to raise it before the sentencing court. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a [937] judgment of the Lewis County Court (Charles C. Merrell, J.), rendered January 12, 2007. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]), defendant contends that County Court erred in imposing a fine without conducting a hearing to determine his ability to pay. That contention is encompassed by defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal (see generally People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]; People v Horton, 256 AD2d 1105 [1998], lv denied 93 NY2d 972 [1999]). In any event, “appellate challenges to the procedures utilized in determining and imposing sentence are forfeited if they are not raised in a timely manner before the trial court” (People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]), and here defendant forfeited that challenge by failing to raise it before the sentencing court. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

People v. Lanzara, 59 A.D.3d 936, 873 N.Y.S.2d 399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

59 A.D.3d 936 (People v. Lanzara) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related