People v. Piediscalzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Piediscalzo

287 A.D.2d 582, 731 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9612

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

DecidedOctober 15, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 287 A.D.2d 582 (People v. Piediscalzo) 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. Piediscalzo, 287 A.D.2d 582, 731 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered October 21, 1999, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention regarding the validity of his plea as he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Gilchrist, 280 AD2d 488; People v Naglieri, 262 AD2d 426), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s contention that his sentence was excessive is without merit (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered October 21, 1999, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention regarding the validity of his plea as he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v Gilchrist, 280 AD2d 488; People v Naglieri, 262 AD2d 426), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant’s contention that his sentence was excessive is without merit (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). O’Brien, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

287 A.D.2d 582, 731 N.Y.S.2d 656, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-piediscalzo-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack