People v. Scott P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scott P.

275 A.D.2d 723, 713 N.Y.S.2d 478, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9140

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 275 A.D.2d 723 (People v. Scott P.) 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. Scott P., 275 A.D.2d 723, 713 N.Y.S.2d 478, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (LaPera, J.), imposed January 7, 2000, on the grounds that the sentence is both illegal and excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

As part of his plea agreement the defendant was advised that if he got into any trouble before the sentencing date the court would impose an enhanced sentence. Additionally, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently executed a general waiver of his right to appeal. This waiver encompassed the defendant’s contention on appeal that the enhanced sentence is harsh and excessive, and accordingly, appellate review is precluded (see, People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489).

Although the waiver does not apply to the defendant’s claim that the court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the validity of his post-plea arrests before imposing the enhanced sentence (see, People v Miles, supra), the defendant’s contentions are unpreserved for appellate review because he did not challenge the validity of at least one of the arrests (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702; People v Miles, supra). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Thompson, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County (LaPera, J.), imposed January 7, 2000, on the grounds that the sentence is both illegal and excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

As part of his plea agreement the defendant was advised that if he got into any trouble before the sentencing date the court would impose an enhanced sentence. Additionally, the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently executed a general waiver of his right to appeal. This waiver encompassed the defendant’s contention on appeal that the enhanced sentence is harsh and excessive, and accordingly, appellate review is precluded (see, People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489).

Although the waiver does not apply to the defendant’s claim that the court failed to conduct an adequate inquiry into the validity of his post-plea arrests before imposing the enhanced sentence (see, People v Miles, supra), the defendant’s contentions are unpreserved for appellate review because he did not challenge the validity of at least one of the arrests (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702; People v Miles, supra). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Thompson, Krausman and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 723, 713 N.Y.S.2d 478, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scott-p-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack