People v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santiago

280 A.D.2d 688, 721 N.Y.S.2d 253, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1833

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 688 (People v. Santiago) 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. Santiago, 280 A.D.2d 688, 721 N.Y.S.2d 253, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1833 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered November 15, 1999, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claims are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662) or waived (see, People v Hayes, 239 AD2d 358). In any event, there is nothing in the defendant’s factual allocution which casts doubt upon her guilt, negates an essential element of the crime, or suggests a legitimate defense (see, People v Dozier, 221 AD2d 655). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Ruchelsman, J.), rendered November 15, 1999, convicting her of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s claims are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662) or waived (see, People v Hayes, 239 AD2d 358). In any event, there is nothing in the defendant’s factual allocution which casts doubt upon her guilt, negates an essential element of the crime, or suggests a legitimate defense (see, People v Dozier, 221 AD2d 655). Ritter, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 688, 721 N.Y.S.2d 253, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1833, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santiago-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack