People v. Shaw

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Shaw

684 N.E.2d 273, 90 N.Y.2d 879, 661 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 1399

New York Court of Appeals·Decided July 2, 1997·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

*880 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

That Court affirmed a judgment of conviction on a guilty plea and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal. The only issue relates to the imposition, expressly, in the judgment of the statutory surcharge applicable under since-amended CPL 420.35 (2) and still extant Penal Law § 60.35 (1). The record demonstrates that defendant’s argument, that the trial court failed or even improperly exercised any discretion it may have had, is unpreserved for failure to be raised at nisi prius.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

*880 OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

That Court affirmed a judgment of conviction on a guilty plea and a Judge of this Court granted leave to appeal. The only issue relates to the imposition, expressly, in the judgment of the statutory surcharge applicable under since-amended CPL 420.35 (2) and still extant Penal Law § 60.35 (1). The record demonstrates that defendant’s argument, that the trial court failed or even improperly exercised any discretion it may have had, is unpreserved for failure to be raised at nisi prius.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

People v. Shaw, 684 N.E.2d 273, 90 N.Y.2d 879, 661 N.Y.S.2d 824, 1997 N.Y. LEXIS 1399 (N.Y. 1997).

Pincite

684 N.E.2d 273 (People v. Shaw) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related