People v. Lawrence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lawrence

273 A.D.2d 805, 710 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6790

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

DecidedJune 16, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 805 (People v. Lawrence) 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. Lawrence, 273 A.D.2d 805, 710 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6790 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: An issue concerning the interpretation or application of a criminal statute or a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations of an indictment does not survive a defendant’s plea of guilty (see, People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008, 1009, rearg denied 58 NY2d 824; People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338, 340, 343-345). A guilty plea also forecloses any challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury (see, People v Simms, 269 AD2d 788; People v Buthy, 85 AD2d 890). Defendant’s contention that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient to establish larceny by extortion therefore is not properly before us (see, Penal Law § 155.40 [2]; § 155.05 [2] [e]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner and Kehoe, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: An issue concerning the interpretation or application of a criminal statute or a challenge to the legal sufficiency of the factual allegations of an indictment does not survive a defendant’s plea of guilty (see, People v Levin, 57 NY2d 1008, 1009, rearg denied 58 NY2d 824; People v Thomas, 53 NY2d 338, 340, 343-345). A guilty plea also forecloses any challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence before the Grand Jury (see, People v Simms, 269 AD2d 788; People v Buthy, 85 AD2d 890). Defendant’s contention that the evidence before the Grand Jury was legally insufficient to establish larceny by extortion therefore is not properly before us (see, Penal Law § 155.40 [2]; § 155.05 [2] [e]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Grand Larceny, 4th Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Hayes, Wisner and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 805, 710 N.Y.S.2d 262, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6790, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lawrence-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack