People v. Stefanovich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stefanovich

94 A.D.3d 1292, 942 N.Y.S.2d 379

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

DecidedApril 19, 2012

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 94 A.D.3d 1292 (People v. Stefanovich) 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. Stefanovich, 94 A.D.3d 1292, 942 N.Y.S.2d 379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Washington County (Mc-Keighan, J.), rendered December 6, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

In satisfaction of various charges, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to 1 to 3 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. We are, however, precluded from addressing this issue given defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal that he has not challenged (see People v Hyson, 56 AD3d 890, 892 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 758 [2009]; see also People v Byrnes, 29 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2006]). Therefore, we decline to disturb the judgment of conviction.

Peters, EJ., Rose, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, 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 County Court of Washington County (Mc-Keighan, J.), rendered December 6, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

In satisfaction of various charges, defendant pleaded guilty to driving while intoxicated and waived his right to appeal. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced to 1 to 3 years in prison. Defendant now appeals.

Defendant’s sole contention is that the sentence is harsh and excessive. We are, however, precluded from addressing this issue given defendant’s valid waiver of the right to appeal that he has not challenged (see People v Hyson, 56 AD3d 890, 892 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 758 [2009]; see also People v Byrnes, 29 AD3d 1160, 1161 [2006]). Therefore, we decline to disturb the judgment of conviction.

Peters, EJ., Rose, Kavanagh, Stein and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

94 A.D.3d 1292, 942 N.Y.S.2d 379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stefanovich-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack