People v. Rodriguez-Ortiz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rodriguez-Ortiz

23 A.D.3d 204, 802 N.Y.S.2d 622

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

DecidedNovember 3, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 23 A.D.3d 204 (People v. Rodriguez-Ortiz) 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. Rodriguez-Ortiz, 23 A.D.3d 204, 802 N.Y.S.2d 622 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered February 18, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s waiver of his right to áppeal encompasses his present constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Figueroa, 13 AD3d 163 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 798 [2005]). Were we to find that this issue was not waived, we would find it to be unpreserved and, in any event, without merit (see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]). Defendant’s mandatory sentence was based entirely on his prior convictions (see Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224 [1998]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Harold Silverman, J.), rendered February 18, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to a term of 12 years to life, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s waiver of his right to áppeal encompasses his present constitutional challenge to the procedure under which he was sentenced as a persistent violent felony offender (see People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Figueroa, 13 AD3d 163 [2004], lv denied 4 NY3d 798 [2005]). Were we to find that this issue was not waived, we would find it to be unpreserved and, in any event, without merit (see People v Rosen, 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]). Defendant’s mandatory sentence was based entirely on his prior convictions (see Almendarez-Torres v United States, 523 US 224 [1998]). Concur—Marlow, J.P., Nardelli, Williams, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

23 A.D.3d 204, 802 N.Y.S.2d 622, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rodriguez-ortiz-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack