People v. Nickens

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Nickens

46 A.D.3d 363, 846 N.Y.S.2d 910

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

DecidedDecember 18, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 46 A.D.3d 363 (People v. Nickens) 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. Nickens, 46 A.D.3d 363, 846 N.Y.S.2d 910 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered April 19, 2006, resentencing defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree to a term of I2V2 to 25 years, to run concurrently with time remaining on a previously imposed sentence, nunc pro tunc to August 1, 1995, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court improperly resentenced him (see People v Samms, 95 NY2d 52, 55-58 [2000]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court did not unlawfully alter defendant’s sentence (see CPL 430.10).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments, including his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

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

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered April 19, 2006, resentencing defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree to a term of I2V2 to 25 years, to run concurrently with time remaining on a previously imposed sentence, nunc pro tunc to August 1, 1995, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant did not preserve his claim that the court improperly resentenced him (see People v Samms, 95 NY2d 52, 55-58 [2000]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the court did not unlawfully alter defendant’s sentence (see CPL 430.10).

We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining arguments, including his ineffective assistance of counsel claim. Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Saxe, Marlow, Catterson and Malone, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 363, 846 N.Y.S.2d 910, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-nickens-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack