People v. Schwendinger

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Schwendinger

240 A.D.2d 822, 659 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6547

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

DecidedJune 12, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 240 A.D.2d 822 (People v. Schwendinger) 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. Schwendinger, 240 A.D.2d 822, 659 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6547 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Rosen, J.), rendered March 12, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree.

Defendant was sentenced to time served and five years’ probation after entering a plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree. As part of the plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal; therefore, his contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Wilson, 209 AD2d 792, lv denied 84 NY2d 1040). In any event, were we to consider this argument, we would find no reason to disturb the agreed-upon sentence (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Rosen, J.), rendered March 12, 1996, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree.

Defendant was sentenced to time served and five years’ probation after entering a plea of guilty of the crime of criminal mischief in the third degree. As part of the plea agreement, defendant waived his right to appeal; therefore, his contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive has not been preserved for our review (see, People v Wilson, 209 AD2d 792, lv denied 84 NY2d 1040). In any event, were we to consider this argument, we would find no reason to disturb the agreed-upon sentence (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Crew III, Casey, Yesawich Jr. and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

240 A.D.2d 822, 659 N.Y.S.2d 819, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6547, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-schwendinger-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack