People v. Mateo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mateo

144 A.D.2d 388, 534 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11210

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 7, 1988·Published·Cited by 9 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), both rendered August 4, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree under indictment No. 58798, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under indictment No. 58799, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s failure to raise any objection to the constitutionality of the mandatory sentencing standards under Penal Law § 70.00 before the sentencing court precludes appellate review of his challenge thereto (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rosado, 123 AD2d 334, lv denied 68 NY2d 1003). In any event, we find no merit to the defendant’s contention that these provisions constitute cruel and inhuman punishment either on their face or as applied (see, People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694). Moreover, the imposed sentences were the result of negotiated pleas, and as such the defendant cannot now be heard to complain that they were excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kunzeman, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Nassau County (Harrington, J.), both rendered August 4, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree under indictment No. 58798, and criminal possession of a weapon in the fourth degree under indictment No. 58799, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s failure to raise any objection to the constitutionality of the mandatory sentencing standards under Penal Law § 70.00 before the sentencing court precludes appellate review of his challenge thereto (CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Rosado, 123 AD2d 334, lv denied 68 NY2d 1003). In any event, we find no merit to the defendant’s contention that these provisions constitute cruel and inhuman punishment either on their face or as applied (see, People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694). Moreover, the imposed sentences were the result of negotiated pleas, and as such the defendant cannot now be heard to complain that they were excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Kunzeman, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.

People v. Mateo, 144 A.D.2d 388, 534 N.Y.S.2d 869, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11210 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

144 A.D.2d 388 (People v. Mateo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related