People v. McNair

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McNair

212 A.D.2d 550, 623 N.Y.S.2d 125

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

DecidedFebruary 6, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 550 (People v. McNair) 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. McNair, 212 A.D.2d 550, 623 N.Y.S.2d 125 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), imposed February 24, 1994.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the sentence imposed violated Penal Law § 60.01 (2) (d) because it included a period of electronic monitoring which, in effect, extended the six-month period of incarceration permissible under the statute. We find this contention to be without merit (cf., People ex rel. Kornaker v Meloni, 134 Misc 2d 444, affd 134 AD2d 868; see generally, Matter of Hawkins v Coughlin, 72 NY2d 158; People ex rel. Knox v Kelly, 126 AD2d 318). The contention that electronic monitoring was inappropriately imposed under the circumstances of this case is also without merit, and we note that the plea agreement included participation in the electronic monitoring program as a condition of probation.

The defendant’s remaining contentions with respect to his sentence are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636), without merit, or are based on matters dehors the record. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), imposed February 24, 1994.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the sentence imposed violated Penal Law § 60.01 (2) (d) because it included a period of electronic monitoring which, in effect, extended the six-month period of incarceration permissible under the statute. We find this contention to be without merit (cf., People ex rel. Kornaker v Meloni, 134 Misc 2d 444, affd 134 AD2d 868; see generally, Matter of Hawkins v Coughlin, 72 NY2d 158; People ex rel. Knox v Kelly, 126 AD2d 318). The contention that electronic monitoring was inappropriately imposed under the circumstances of this case is also without merit, and we note that the plea agreement included participation in the electronic monitoring program as a condition of probation.

The defendant’s remaining contentions with respect to his sentence are unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636), without merit, or are based on matters dehors the record. Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, O’Brien, Thompson and Hart, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 550, 623 N.Y.S.2d 125, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcnair-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack