People v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rice

27 A.D.3d 1158, 810 N.Y.S.2d 723

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 1158 (People v. Rice) 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. Rice, 27 A.D.3d 1158, 810 N.Y.S.2d 723 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered November 9, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.50) and reckless endangerment in the first degree (§ 120.25). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see People v Brown, 80 NY2d 361, 363-364 [1992]; see generally People v Montstream, 21 AD3d 1353, 1354 [2005]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered November 9, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.50) and reckless endangerment in the first degree (§ 120.25). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit (see People v Brown, 80 NY2d 361, 363-364 [1992]; see generally People v Montstream, 21 AD3d 1353, 1354 [2005]). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 1158, 810 N.Y.S.2d 723, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rice-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack