People v. Loomis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Loomis

9 A.D.3d 829, 779 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9468

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

DecidedJuly 9, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 9 A.D.3d 829 (People v. Loomis) 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. Loomis, 9 A.D.3d 829, 779 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9468 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony E Aloi, J.), rendered April 22, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first 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 his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4]). Defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a determinate term of incarceration of five years plus five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered because he did not recite the details of the crime during the plea allocution (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), nor does this case fall within the rare case exception to the preservation rule (see id. at 666). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit (see People v Gerber, 182 AD2d 252, 259 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 1026 [1992]). Defendant’s bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr, P.J, Gorski, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Onondaga County Court (Anthony E Aloi, J.), rendered April 22, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first 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 his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.15 [4]). Defendant was sentenced, as a second felony offender, to a determinate term of incarceration of five years plus five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not voluntarily and knowingly entered because he did not recite the details of the crime during the plea allocution (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]), nor does this case fall within the rare case exception to the preservation rule (see id. at 666). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit (see People v Gerber, 182 AD2d 252, 259 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 1026 [1992]). Defendant’s bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr, P.J, Gorski, Martoche, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 829, 779 N.Y.S.2d 380, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9468, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-loomis-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack