People v. Steinagle
This text of People v. Steinagle (People v. Steinagle) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Steinagle
2026 NY Slip Op 02515
April 24, 2026
Appellate Division, Fourth Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v
CAROL STEINAGLE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Decided on April 24, 2026
139 KA 24-01249
Present: Whalen, P.J., Lindley, Curran, Smith, And Delconte, JJ.
ERICKSON WEBB SCOLTON & HAJDU, LAKEWOOD (LYLE T. HAJDU OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
MICHAEL J. KEANE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (TABITHA R. SALONEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Deborah A. Haendiges, J.), rendered June 25, 2024. The judgment convicted defendant upon her plea of guilty of kidnapping in the second degree.
[*1]It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of kidnapping in the second degree (Penal Law § 135.20). We affirm.
Defendant failed to preserve for our review her contention that her plea was not knowingly and voluntarily entered inasmuch as she did not move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Council, 234 AD3d 1361, 1362 [4th Dept 2025]; People v Cunningham, 213 AD3d 1270, 1271 [4th Dept 2023], lv denied 39 NY3d 1110 [2023]), and we decline to exercise our power to review the contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]; Council, 234 AD3d at 1363).
Contrary to defendant's contention, her sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.
Entered: April 24, 2026
Ann Dillon Flynn
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI