People v. Leed

2019 NY Slip Op 2721
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 10, 2019
Docket2017-06748
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 2721 (People v. Leed) 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. Leed, 2019 NY Slip Op 2721 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People v Leed (2019 NY Slip Op 02721)
People v Leed
2019 NY Slip Op 02721
Decided on April 10, 2019
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on April 10, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
JEFFREY A. COHEN
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2017-06748

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Stephen F. Leed, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 110/17)


Yasmin Daley Duncan, Brooklyn, NY, for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Peter M. Forman, J.), rendered June 6, 2017, as amended September 7, 2017, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, or intelligently entered because the County Court, among other things, resentenced the defendant to a period of postrelease supervision that exceeded the period of postrelease supervision that had been promised in connection with the plea agreement. The defendant's contention is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant was made aware of the amended sentence at the outset of the resentencing proceeding but failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to the imposition of the resentence or otherwise raise this issue before the County Court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Crowder, 24 NY3d 1134, 1136-1137; People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727; People v Ullah, 130 AD3d 759, 760; People v Brown, 107 AD3d 819). Under the circumstances of this case, we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

DILLON, J.P., COHEN, DUFFY and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Murray
932 N.E.2d 877 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
The People v. Adam Crowder
26 N.E.3d 1164 (New York Court of Appeals, 2015)
People v. Ullah
130 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Brown
107 A.D.3d 819 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 2721, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leed-nyappdiv-2019.