People v. Santilli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santilli

16 A.D.3d 1056, 790 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2801

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 18, 2005·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the Seneca County Court (Dennis F. Bender, J.), rendered October 7, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second [1057]*1057degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [2]), defendant contends that the sentence of incarceration of 3x/2 years to life constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that the contention of defendant does not survive her valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Hidalgo, 283 AD2d 154 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 902 [2001]; People v Brathwaite, 263 AD2d 89, 92 [2000]) and, in any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Ingram, 67 NY2d 897, 899 [1986]; People v Cato, 291 AD2d 905 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 649 [2002]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

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

— Appeal from a judgment of the Seneca County Court (Dennis F. Bender, J.), rendered October 7, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second [1057]*1057degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [2]), defendant contends that the sentence of incarceration of 3x/2 years to life constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. We conclude that the contention of defendant does not survive her valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Hidalgo, 283 AD2d 154 [2001], lv denied 96 NY2d 902 [2001]; People v Brathwaite, 263 AD2d 89, 92 [2000]) and, in any event, that contention is not preserved for our review (see People v Ingram, 67 NY2d 897, 899 [1986]; People v Cato, 291 AD2d 905 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 649 [2002]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Gorski, Pine and Hayes, JJ.

People v. Santilli, 16 A.D.3d 1056, 790 N.Y.S.2d 898, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2801 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

16 A.D.3d 1056 (People v. Santilli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related