People v. Sokolowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sokolowski

37 A.D.3d 906, 827 N.Y.S.2d 891

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

DecidedFebruary 8, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 906 (People v. Sokolowski) 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. Sokolowski, 37 A.D.3d 906, 827 N.Y.S.2d 891 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered March 9, 2006, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree. County Court advised defendant of the potential sentencing options, but did not promise a specific sentence as part of the plea agreement. She was subsequently sentenced to 270 days in jail and she now appeals.

Defendant’s sole argument is that her sentence is harsh and excessive and that she should have been sentenced to a 10-year period of probation instead of incarceration. However, inasmuch [907]*907as defendant has completed serving her jail term, her appeal is now moot (see People v Hamilton, 214 AD2d 783 [1995]).

Mercare, J.E, Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered March 9, 2006, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a three-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree. County Court advised defendant of the potential sentencing options, but did not promise a specific sentence as part of the plea agreement. She was subsequently sentenced to 270 days in jail and she now appeals.

Defendant’s sole argument is that her sentence is harsh and excessive and that she should have been sentenced to a 10-year period of probation instead of incarceration. However, inasmuch [907]*907as defendant has completed serving her jail term, her appeal is now moot (see People v Hamilton, 214 AD2d 783 [1995]).

Mercare, J.E, Spain, Carpinello, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, as moot.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 906, 827 N.Y.S.2d 891, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sokolowski-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack