People v. Lucas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lucas

11 A.D.3d 324, 782 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12211

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

DecidedOctober 19, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 11 A.D.3d 324 (People v. Lucas) 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. Lucas, 11 A.D.3d 324, 782 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12211 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered January 23, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sodomy in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant received fair notice of the terms of his plea agreement (see People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578 [1976]), and that he failed to satisfy several of the objective requirements of that agreement. Accordingly, the court properly imposed an enhanced sentence (see People v Hicks, 98 NY2d 185 [2002]).

[325]*325Defendant’s excessive sentence claim is foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal. Were we to find otherwise, we would perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd G. Goodman, J.), rendered January 23, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sodomy in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 10 years and 1 year, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

The record establishes that defendant received fair notice of the terms of his plea agreement (see People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578 [1976]), and that he failed to satisfy several of the objective requirements of that agreement. Accordingly, the court properly imposed an enhanced sentence (see People v Hicks, 98 NY2d 185 [2002]).

[325]*325Defendant’s excessive sentence claim is foreclosed by his waiver of the right to appeal. Were we to find otherwise, we would perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Tom, J.P., Lerner, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

11 A.D.3d 324, 782 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12211, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lucas-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack