People v. Sennett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sennett

280 A.D.2d 998, 720 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1282

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 998 (People v. Sennett) 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. Sennett, 280 A.D.2d 998, 720 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1282 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Engert, 263 AD2d 959, lv denied 93 NY2d 1017). The plea allocution did not engender significant doubt regarding the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, supra, at 666). The bargained-for sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: By failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v Engert, 263 AD2d 959, lv denied 93 NY2d 1017). The plea allocution did not engender significant doubt regarding the voluntariness of the plea to bring this case within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see, People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726, rearg denied 86 NY2d 839; People v Lopez, supra, at 666). The bargained-for sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Henry, Jr., J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Wisner, J. P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 998, 720 N.Y.S.2d 428, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1282, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sennett-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack