People v. Pagan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pagan

27 A.D.3d 580, 810 N.Y.S.2d 370

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 580 (People v. Pagan) 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. Pagan, 27 A.D.3d 580, 810 N.Y.S.2d 370 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered March 25, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of stolen property [581]*581in the third degree, under Superior Court information No. 01-0050, (2) an amended judgment of the same court also rendered March 25, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for burglary in the second degree, under Superior Court information No. 01-0134, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court also rendered March 25, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for escape in the second degree, under Superior Court information No. 01-0194.

Ordered that the amended judgments are affirmed.

The defendant never filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered May 15, 2001, upon his plea of guilty under Orange County Superior Court information No. 01-0050 to criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. Accordingly, his claim that the County Court erred in failing to treat him as a youthful offender is not properly before this Court (see People v Park, 203 AD2d 596 [1994]).

The defendant’s waivers of his right to appeal preclude review of his claim that the sentences imposed were excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Kimbrough, 25 AD3d 810 [2006],

The defendant’s remaining contentions are also not properly before the Court based upon his failure to appeal from the original judgments of conviction (see People v Moore, 261 AD2d 421 [1999]). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered March 25, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of stolen property [581]*581in the third degree, under Superior Court information No. 01-0050, (2) an amended judgment of the same court also rendered March 25, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for burglary in the second degree, under Superior Court information No. 01-0134, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court also rendered March 25, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for escape in the second degree, under Superior Court information No. 01-0194.

Ordered that the amended judgments are affirmed.

The defendant never filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered May 15, 2001, upon his plea of guilty under Orange County Superior Court information No. 01-0050 to criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. Accordingly, his claim that the County Court erred in failing to treat him as a youthful offender is not properly before this Court (see People v Park, 203 AD2d 596 [1994]).

The defendant’s waivers of his right to appeal preclude review of his claim that the sentences imposed were excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Kimbrough, 25 AD3d 810 [2006],

The defendant’s remaining contentions are also not properly before the Court based upon his failure to appeal from the original judgments of conviction (see People v Moore, 261 AD2d 421 [1999]). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 580, 810 N.Y.S.2d 370, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pagan-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack