People v. McLean

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McLean

302 A.D.2d 934, 753 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 914

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by25 cases

This text of 302 A.D.2d 934 (People v. McLean) 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. McLean, 302 A.D.2d 934, 753 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Dwyer, J.), entered November 10, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered and that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Because County Court failed to advise defendant of the “potential periods of incarceration that could be imposed before he waived his right to appeal,” the waiver, even if valid, does not encompass defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (People v Webb, 299 AD2d 955; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). We conclude, however, that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Oneida County Court (Dwyer, J.), entered November 10, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal was not knowingly, voluntarily or intelligently entered and that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Because County Court failed to advise defendant of the “potential periods of incarceration that could be imposed before he waived his right to appeal,” the waiver, even if valid, does not encompass defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence (People v Webb, 299 AD2d 955; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). We conclude, however, that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 934, 753 N.Y.S.2d 799, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mclean-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack