People v. Rosado

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rosado

123 A.D.2d 334, 506 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60110

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

DecidedSeptember 8, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 123 A.D.2d 334 (People v. Rosado) 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. Rosado, 123 A.D.2d 334, 506 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County [335]*335(Martin, J.), both rendered September 16, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree under indictment No. 82-01090-01, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under indictment No. 82-01120-01, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

The defendant failed to raise any objections to the constitutionality of the mandatory sentencing scheme of Penal Law § 70.00 before the sentencing court, and, therefore, the issue of law is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we find no merit to the defendant’s contention that such provisions constitute cruel and unusual punishment either on their face or as applied (see, People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694; People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, cert denied 423 US 950; People v Donovan, 89 AD2d 968, affd 59 NY2d 834). Finally, as the sentences imposed were the result of a negotiated plea, the defendant may not now be heard to complain that they are excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Brown, J. P., Niehoif, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Westchester County [335]*335(Martin, J.), both rendered September 16, 1983, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the first degree under indictment No. 82-01090-01, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under indictment No. 82-01120-01, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Judgments affirmed.

The defendant failed to raise any objections to the constitutionality of the mandatory sentencing scheme of Penal Law § 70.00 before the sentencing court, and, therefore, the issue of law is unpreserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, we find no merit to the defendant’s contention that such provisions constitute cruel and unusual punishment either on their face or as applied (see, People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694; People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, cert denied 423 US 950; People v Donovan, 89 AD2d 968, affd 59 NY2d 834). Finally, as the sentences imposed were the result of a negotiated plea, the defendant may not now be heard to complain that they are excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Brown, J. P., Niehoif, Rubin and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.2d 334, 506 N.Y.S.2d 230, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 60110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rosado-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack