People v. Mundy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mundy

281 A.D.2d 338, 722 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188

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

DecidedMarch 27, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 281 A.D.2d 338 (People v. Mundy) 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. Mundy, 281 A.D.2d 338, 722 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J., at initial plea; John Cataldo, J., at second plea and sentence), rendered January 5, 1999, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant claims that, due to the People’s allegedly unreasonable delay in ascertaining his second felony offender status, he was entitled to be sentenced, as originally promised, to a term of 1 year. This claim was waived when, upon the People’s discovery of his prior felony convictions, defendant accepted a renegotiated plea and sentence. In any event, since defendant was, in fact, a second felony offender a sentence of 1 year would have been illegal and the court would have had no authority to impose such a sentence (People v Scarbrough, 66 NY2d 673). Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura Drager, J., at initial plea; John Cataldo, J., at second plea and sentence), rendered January 5, 1999, convicting defendant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant claims that, due to the People’s allegedly unreasonable delay in ascertaining his second felony offender status, he was entitled to be sentenced, as originally promised, to a term of 1 year. This claim was waived when, upon the People’s discovery of his prior felony convictions, defendant accepted a renegotiated plea and sentence. In any event, since defendant was, in fact, a second felony offender a sentence of 1 year would have been illegal and the court would have had no authority to impose such a sentence (People v Scarbrough, 66 NY2d 673). Defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his pro se supplemental brief, are unpreserved and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would reject them. Concur — Rosenberger, J. P., Williams, Tom, Lerner and Buckley, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

281 A.D.2d 338, 722 N.Y.S.2d 514, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3188, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mundy-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack