People v. McGill
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 06334 (People v. McGill) 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.
Opinion
People v McGill (2025 NY Slip Op 06334)
| People v McGill |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 06334 |
| Decided on November 19, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on November 19, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
PAUL WOOTEN
PHILLIP HOM
ELENA GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ.
2022-07869
(Ind. No. 5168/18)
v
Lamar McGill, appellant.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Victoria Broderick of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Julian Joiris of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J., at plea; Matthew Sciarrino, Jr., J., at sentence), rendered September 2, 2022, convicting him of attempted robbery in the second degree and petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that his sentence as a second violent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.04) is unconstitutional is unpreserved for appellate review, as the defendant failed to raise a constitutional challenge or otherwise contest his criminal history, including the relevant periods of incarceration, before the Supreme Court (see CPL 470.05[2]; People v Hernandez, 43 NY3d 591, 597; People v Munoz, 237 AD3d 1110, 1111). We decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Munoz, 237 AD3d at 1111; People v Bynum, 225 AD3d 781, 781).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
The parties' remaining contentions need not be addressed in light of the foregoing.
DUFFY, J.P., WOOTEN, HOM and GOLDBERG VELAZQUEZ, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 06334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcgill-nyappdiv-2025.