People v. Padilla

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Padilla

18 A.D.3d 578, 794 N.Y.S.2d 666

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 9, 2005·Published·Cited by 7 cases

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered June 13, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

[579]*579Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim regarding the voluntariness of his admission to a violation of probation is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636 [1983]; People v Melvin, 274 AD2d 435 [2000]; People v Shelby, 267 AD2d 482 [1999]; People v Tavares, 197 AD2d 552 [1993]). In any event, the record established that he knowingly and voluntarily admitted to the violation of probation (see People v Melvin, supra; People v Shelby, supra).

Furthermore, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in failing to, sua sponte, order a competency hearing (see CPL 730.30; People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834 [1999]; People v Gelikkaya, 84 NY2d 456, 459 [1994]; People v Armlin, 37 NY2d 167, 171 [1975]; People v Graham, 272 AD2d 479 [2000]).

We have considered the defendant’s contention that his negotiated sentence was excessive and find it to he without merit (see People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100 [1975], cert denied 423 US 950 [1975]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered June 13, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

[579]*579Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claim regarding the voluntariness of his admission to a violation of probation is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636 [1983]; People v Melvin, 274 AD2d 435 [2000]; People v Shelby, 267 AD2d 482 [1999]; People v Tavares, 197 AD2d 552 [1993]). In any event, the record established that he knowingly and voluntarily admitted to the violation of probation (see People v Melvin, supra; People v Shelby, supra).

Furthermore, the County Court providently exercised its discretion in failing to, sua sponte, order a competency hearing (see CPL 730.30; People v Tortorici, 92 NY2d 757 [1999], cert denied 528 US 834 [1999]; People v Gelikkaya, 84 NY2d 456, 459 [1994]; People v Armlin, 37 NY2d 167, 171 [1975]; People v Graham, 272 AD2d 479 [2000]).

We have considered the defendant’s contention that his negotiated sentence was excessive and find it to he without merit (see People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100 [1975], cert denied 423 US 950 [1975]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., Schmidt, Santucci, Luciano and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

People v. Padilla, 18 A.D.3d 578, 794 N.Y.S.2d 666 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

18 A.D.3d 578 (People v. Padilla) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related