People v. Looney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Looney

111 A.D.2d 934, 491 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50206

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

DecidedJune 24, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 111 A.D.2d 934 (People v. Looney) 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. Looney, 111 A.D.2d 934, 491 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50206 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered March 8, 1984, which, after a hearing on December 16, 1983, wherein defendant was found to have violated the conditions of his probation, vacated his sentence of five years’ probation and resentenced him to an indeterminate term of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Seidell, J.), rendered May 14, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 121/2 to 25 years as a second felony offender, said sentence to be concurrent with the one imposed on March 8, 1984.

Amended judgment and judgment affirmed.

Neither the record nor the cases cited by defendant provides any support for defendant’s contentions that the proof adduced at his probation violation hearing was insufficient to sustain the finding that he violated the conditions of his probation.

Defendant’s argument that his guilty plea to manslaughter in the first degree was not knowingly and voluntarily made was not preserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment in the court of first instance (People v Pascale, 48 NY2d 997; People v Perkins, 89 AD2d 956).

Defendant also argues that the sentences imposed on him were harsh and excessive. He offers no valid reason why the sentences imposed upon him, which were within the statutory maximum, should be disturbed (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), rendered March 8, 1984, which, after a hearing on December 16, 1983, wherein defendant was found to have violated the conditions of his probation, vacated his sentence of five years’ probation and resentenced him to an indeterminate term of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment, and (2) a judgment of the same court (Seidell, J.), rendered May 14, 1984, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 121/2 to 25 years as a second felony offender, said sentence to be concurrent with the one imposed on March 8, 1984.

Amended judgment and judgment affirmed.

Neither the record nor the cases cited by defendant provides any support for defendant’s contentions that the proof adduced at his probation violation hearing was insufficient to sustain the finding that he violated the conditions of his probation.

Defendant’s argument that his guilty plea to manslaughter in the first degree was not knowingly and voluntarily made was not preserved for appellate review since he did not move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment in the court of first instance (People v Pascale, 48 NY2d 997; People v Perkins, 89 AD2d 956).

Defendant also argues that the sentences imposed on him were harsh and excessive. He offers no valid reason why the sentences imposed upon him, which were within the statutory maximum, should be disturbed (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 934, 491 N.Y.S.2d 43, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50206, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-looney-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack