People v. Peyatt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Peyatt

140 A.D.3d 1680, 33 N.Y.S.3d 630

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

DecidedJune 10, 2016

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1680 (People v. Peyatt) 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. Peyatt, 140 A.D.3d 1680, 33 N.Y.S.3d 630 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Farkas, J.), rendered April 22, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree and attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.75 [1] [a]) and attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 130.50 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal {see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence {see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). We note, however, that both the certificate of conviction and the uniform sentence and commitment form incorrectly recite that defendant was convicted of criminal sexual act in the first degree rather than an attempt to commit that crime. The certificate of conviction and the sentence and commitment form must therefore be amended to correct that clerical error {see People v Oberdorf, 136 AD3d 1291, 1292-1293 [2016]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Lindley, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Sara S. Farkas, J.), rendered April 22, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree and attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.75 [1] [a]) and attempted criminal sexual act in the first degree (§§ 110.00, 130.50 [1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived his right to appeal {see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]), and that valid waiver forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence {see id. at 255; see generally People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). We note, however, that both the certificate of conviction and the uniform sentence and commitment form incorrectly recite that defendant was convicted of criminal sexual act in the first degree rather than an attempt to commit that crime. The certificate of conviction and the sentence and commitment form must therefore be amended to correct that clerical error {see People v Oberdorf, 136 AD3d 1291, 1292-1293 [2016]).

Present — Whalen, P.J., Smith, Lindley, NeMoyer and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 1680, 33 N.Y.S.3d 630, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peyatt-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack