People v. Sharlow

116 A.D.2d 603, 497 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51462
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 13, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 603 (People v. Sharlow) 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. Sharlow, 116 A.D.2d 603, 497 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered July 20, 1983, convicting him of attempted robbery [604]*604in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 years and 9 months to 5 Vi years.

Judgment affirmed.

The claims raised by defendant as to the legal sufficiency of the plea allocution are unpreserved for review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636). In any event, the plea allocution was satisfactory as all the elements of attempted robbery in the second degree were established. Furthermore, defendant failed to present substantial evidence to overcome the presumption of the validity and regularity of his previous violent felony conviction which was entered upon his guilty plea, and, therefore, he was properly sentenced as a second violent felony offender (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9).

Defendant also contends that the promised sentence of 2Vz to 5 years was not imposed and that he was not given an opportunity to withdraw his plea. Defendant was fully advised that the promised sentence would be enhanced if he failed to appear on "April 15th or any date that may be fixed thereafter”. Defendant failed to appear on the adjourned date, and a bench warrant was issued on June 3. His proffered explanation at sentencing in July was an unsubstantiated claim of amnesia. Under the circumstances, we do not find the sentence imposed either a violation of the plea agreement or excessive (cf. People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Davis, 106 AD2d 657, 658). Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown, Niehoff and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

Related

Ortega v. Port of Portland
936 P.2d 1037 (Court of Appeals of Oregon, 1997)
People v. Parker
172 A.D.2d 697 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Sullivan
153 A.D.2d 223 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Ivory
155 A.D.2d 691 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Headley
150 A.D.2d 490 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Betheny
147 A.D.2d 488 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Raife
146 A.D.2d 652 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
116 A.D.2d 603, 497 N.Y.S.2d 465, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sharlow-nyappdiv-1986.