People v. Sharp

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sharp

150 A.D.2d 402, 543 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5668

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

DecidedMay 1, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 150 A.D.2d 402 (People v. Sharp) 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. Sharp, 150 A.D.2d 402, 543 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5668 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), rendered July 17, 1987, convicting him of petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We note at the outset that the defendant did not affirmatively seek to withdraw his guilty plea before the court of first instance. Accordingly, his challenge to the propriety of the plea is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636).

In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the sentencing court did not violate or otherwise circumvent the terms of the plea agreement by requiring the defendant to participate in drug and alcohol programs as a condition of probation (see, Penal Law § 65.00 [2]; § 65.10 [2] [e]). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), rendered July 17, 1987, convicting him of petit larceny, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We note at the outset that the defendant did not affirmatively seek to withdraw his guilty plea before the court of first instance. Accordingly, his challenge to the propriety of the plea is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636).

In any event, contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the sentencing court did not violate or otherwise circumvent the terms of the plea agreement by requiring the defendant to participate in drug and alcohol programs as a condition of probation (see, Penal Law § 65.00 [2]; § 65.10 [2] [e]). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 402, 543 N.Y.S.2d 311, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5668, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sharp-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack