People v. Maeweather

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Maeweather

248 A.D.2d 994, 670 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3065

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 248 A.D.2d 994 (People v. Maeweather) 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. Maeweather, 248 A.D.2d 994, 670 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3065 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made because he failed to object at sentencing and did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Ramirez, 196 AD2d 775, Iv denied 82 NY2d 852; People v Ferguson, 192 AD2d 800, 801, Iv denied 82 NY2d 717). We decline to exercise our power to address the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We reject the contention of defendant that the mandatory sentence imposed upon him is unduly harsh and severe and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (see, People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his guilty plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made because he failed to object at sentencing and did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Ramirez, 196 AD2d 775, Iv denied 82 NY2d 852; People v Ferguson, 192 AD2d 800, 801, Iv denied 82 NY2d 717). We decline to exercise our power to address the issue as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]).

We reject the contention of defendant that the mandatory sentence imposed upon him is unduly harsh and severe and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment (see, People v Thompson, 83 NY2d 477). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.)

Present — Denman, P. J., Hayes, Balio, Boehm and Fallon, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

248 A.D.2d 994, 670 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3065, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-maeweather-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack