People v. Spencer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spencer

79 A.D.3d 1454, 912 N.Y.S.2d 454

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 23, 2010·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lament, J), rendered November 17, 2008 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in the first degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the first degree and waived her right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, she was sentenced to six years in prison to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, which sentence was to run consecutive to another sentence she was then serving. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. However, in view of defendant’s valid waiver of her right to appeal, we are precluded from addressing this claim (see People v Jennings, 75 AD3d 999 [2010]; People v Board, 75 AD3d 833, 834 [2010]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the judgment of conviction.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lament, J), rendered November 17, 2008 in Albany County, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted assault in the first degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to attempted assault in the first degree and waived her right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, she was sentenced to six years in prison to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision, which sentence was to run consecutive to another sentence she was then serving. Defendant appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. However, in view of defendant’s valid waiver of her right to appeal, we are precluded from addressing this claim (see People v Jennings, 75 AD3d 999 [2010]; People v Board, 75 AD3d 833, 834 [2010]). Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the judgment of conviction.

Mercure, J.P., Spain, Lahtinen, Stein and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

People v. Spencer, 79 A.D.3d 1454, 912 N.Y.S.2d 454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

79 A.D.3d 1454 (People v. Spencer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related