People v. Laskowski

46 A.D.3d 1383, 847 N.Y.S.2d 883
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 21, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1383 (People v. Laskowski) 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. Laskowski, 46 A.D.3d 1383, 847 N.Y.S.2d 883 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert [1384]*1384C. Noonan, J.), rendered May 19, 2006. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]). The valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his challenge to the severity of the period of postrelease supervision (see People v Williams, 6 AD3d 746, 748 [2004] , lv denied 3 NY3d 650 [2004]). Although the waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the further contention of defendant that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced term of incarceration based on postplea conduct (see People v Huggins, 45 AD3d 1380 [2007]), we conclude that defendant’s contention lacks merit. Contrary to the contention of defendant, the court was not required to conduct a hearing prior to imposing an enhanced sentence inasmuch as defendant admitted acts that constituted violations of the plea agreement (see People v Valencia, 3 NY3d 714, 715-716 [2004]; see generally People v Chiclana, 21 AD3d 823, 824 [2005], lv denied 6 NY3d 753 [2005] ). Finally, to the extent that the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel survives his guilty plea and his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Eastman, 45 AD3d 1411 [2007]), we conclude that it is lacking in merit (see generally People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]). Present—Martoche, J.P., Smith, Centra, Peradotto and Green, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Lopez
165 N.Y.S.3d 787 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
SMITH, FRANCIS S., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014
People v. Smith
122 A.D.3d 1420 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
MOFFETT, TAHEED M., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011
People v. Moffett
90 A.D.3d 1560 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
46 A.D.3d 1383, 847 N.Y.S.2d 883, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-laskowski-nyappdiv-2007.