People v. Oliver

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Oliver

473 N.E.2d 242, 63 N.Y.2d 973, 483 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4740

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 13, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by101 cases

This text of 473 N.E.2d 242 (People v. Oliver) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Oliver, 473 N.E.2d 242, 63 N.Y.2d 973, 483 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4740 (N.Y. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted by a trial jury of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. After the verdict was rendered, a hearing was held pursuant to CPL 400.20 to determine if he should be sentenced as a persistent felony offender. At the conclusion of the hearing the court determined that defendant was a persistent felony offender and sentenced him to various concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment, the longest of which had a minimum term of 15 years and a maximum term of life. On appeal defendant challenges the constitutionality of CPL 400.20 and of the manner in which the hearing was held and he also contends the sentence was excessive and based upon incompetent evidence.

Insofar as defendant challenges the constitutionality of CPL 400.20 and the manner in which he was determined to be a persistent felony offender, he has forfeited the objections now raised. He participated fully in the hearing *975 with the aid of counsel and without asserting those objections before the trial court. Having failed to do so, he may not challenge the constitutionality of the statute or the proceeding for the first time on appeal (People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905; People v Drummond, 40 NY2d 990). The rule applied here differs from that applied in People v Morse (62 NY2d 205, 214, n 2) and similar cases in which we held that no objection was necessary in the trial court to preserve the issue on appeal because the court had exceeded its sentencing powers.

Insofar as defendant contends that certain evidence was improperly received, the evidence was either not objected to at the hearing or the objections made were not sufficiently specific or correct to preserve the errors now asserted.

Finally, we find no abuse of defendant’s due process rights because the prosecution sought an enhanced sentence after trial although before trial it had offered defendant a plea to a reduced charge (see Bordenkircher v Hayes, 434 US 357).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant was convicted by a trial jury of burglary in the third degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the fourth degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. After the verdict was rendered, a hearing was held pursuant to CPL 400.20 to determine if he should be sentenced as a persistent felony offender. At the conclusion of the hearing the court determined that defendant was a persistent felony offender and sentenced him to various concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment, the longest of which had a minimum term of 15 years and a maximum term of life. On appeal defendant challenges the constitutionality of CPL 400.20 and of the manner in which the hearing was held and he also contends the sentence was excessive and based upon incompetent evidence.

Insofar as defendant challenges the constitutionality of CPL 400.20 and the manner in which he was determined to be a persistent felony offender, he has forfeited the objections now raised. He participated fully in the hearing *975 with the aid of counsel and without asserting those objections before the trial court. Having failed to do so, he may not challenge the constitutionality of the statute or the proceeding for the first time on appeal (People v McGowen, 42 NY2d 905; People v Drummond, 40 NY2d 990). The rule applied here differs from that applied in People v Morse (62 NY2d 205, 214, n 2) and similar cases in which we held that no objection was necessary in the trial court to preserve the issue on appeal because the court had exceeded its sentencing powers.

Insofar as defendant contends that certain evidence was improperly received, the evidence was either not objected to at the hearing or the objections made were not sufficiently specific or correct to preserve the errors now asserted.

Finally, we find no abuse of defendant’s due process rights because the prosecution sought an enhanced sentence after trial although before trial it had offered defendant a plea to a reduced charge (see Bordenkircher v Hayes, 434 US 357).

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

473 N.E.2d 242, 63 N.Y.2d 973, 483 N.Y.S.2d 992, 1984 N.Y. LEXIS 4740, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-oliver-ny-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack