People v. Le Clair

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Le Clair

47 A.D.2d 679, 364 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8903

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

DecidedFebruary 13, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 679 (People v. Le Clair) 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. Le Clair, 47 A.D.2d 679, 364 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered June 4, 1974, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of an assault in the second degree and imposing an indeterminate sentence with a maximum of four years. The defendant had been indicted upon charges of robbery and assault in the first degree based upon allegations that, on January 26, 1974, he forcibly stole $50 from a female victim and in the course of the commission of the crime struck the said victim on the face and head with a broken bottle causing serious physical injury. On May 21, 1974 the defendant appeared before the court with his assigned counsel and upon the face of the record he voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to the crime of assault in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment, it being obvious that the change of plea was a result of plea bargaining and negotiation. On June 4,1974 sentence was imposed. Upon this appeal, the defendant con: tends that subdivision 4 of section 60.05 of the Penal Law is unconstitutional as comprising cruel and unusual punishment because it mandates a sentence of imprisonment for persons convicted of certain Class D felonies including assault in the second degree. The contention of the defendant does not raise any substantial issue which would indicate a basis for a finding of unconstitutionality and the decision by this court in the recent case of People v. Venable (46 A D 2d 73) mandates the conclusion .that subdivision 4 of section 60.05 of the Penal Law is constitutional. The contention of the defendant that the sentence was excessive is without any merit within the context of this record and the same is true in regard to his alleged conclusions that his assigned counsel had been ineffective and/or incompetent. The further contention of the defendant that there was a conflict of interest in regard to the representation by assigned counsel is not supported by any showing of prejudice in the record which would affect the voluntariness of the plea and imposition of sentence. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered June 4, 1974, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of an assault in the second degree and imposing an indeterminate sentence with a maximum of four years. The defendant had been indicted upon charges of robbery and assault in the first degree based upon allegations that, on January 26, 1974, he forcibly stole $50 from a female victim and in the course of the commission of the crime struck the said victim on the face and head with a broken bottle causing serious physical injury. On May 21, 1974 the defendant appeared before the court with his assigned counsel and upon the face of the record he voluntarily entered a plea of guilty to the crime of assault in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment, it being obvious that the change of plea was a result of plea bargaining and negotiation. On June 4,1974 sentence was imposed. Upon this appeal, the defendant con: tends that subdivision 4 of section 60.05 of the Penal Law is unconstitutional as comprising cruel and unusual punishment because it mandates a sentence of imprisonment for persons convicted of certain Class D felonies including assault in the second degree. The contention of the defendant does not raise any substantial issue which would indicate a basis for a finding of unconstitutionality and the decision by this court in the recent case of People v. Venable (46 A D 2d 73) mandates the conclusion .that subdivision 4 of section 60.05 of the Penal Law is constitutional. The contention of the defendant that the sentence was excessive is without any merit within the context of this record and the same is true in regard to his alleged conclusions that his assigned counsel had been ineffective and/or incompetent. The further contention of the defendant that there was a conflict of interest in regard to the representation by assigned counsel is not supported by any showing of prejudice in the record which would affect the voluntariness of the plea and imposition of sentence. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P. J., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Larkin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 679, 364 N.Y.S.2d 61, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-le-clair-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack