People v. Stratton

2025 NY Slip Op 02090
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 9, 2025
DocketInd. No. 70199/22
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 02090 (People v. Stratton) 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. Stratton, 2025 NY Slip Op 02090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

People v Stratton (2025 NY Slip Op 02090)
People v Stratton
2025 NY Slip Op 02090
Decided on April 9, 2025
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on April 9, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
LILLIAN WAN
DONNA-MARIE E. GOLIA, JJ.

2023-02253
(Ind. No. 70199/22)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Carrime Stratton, appellant.


Kenyon C. Trachte, Newburgh, NY, for appellant.

David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Winter A. Vega and Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Hyun Chin Kim, J.), rendered January 31, 2023, convicting him of criminal contempt in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant's contention, defense counsel did not take a position on the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty that was adverse to the defendant (see People v Mitchell, 21 NY3d 964). Defense counsel did not express an opinion as to the merits of the defendant's motion, but rather indicated that he took no position on it. Therefore, contrary to the defendant's contention, the appointment of a new attorney to represent him on that motion was not required (see People v Edwards, 223 AD3d 840, 841; People v Pointer, 218 AD3d 499, 500).

Since the defendant has completed the sentence imposed upon his conviction, his contention that the County Court improperly imposed an enhanced sentence is academic (see People v Reyes, 74 NY2d 837, 838; People v Nicholson, 31 AD3d 468, 469), as is his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Jackson, 231 AD3d 966; People v Komynar, 210 AD3d 698, 700).

BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, WAN and GOLIA, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Reyes
545 N.E.2d 633 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Mitchell
993 N.E.2d 405 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)
People v. Nicholson
31 A.D.3d 468 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Komynar
210 A.D.3d 698 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2022)
People v. Pointer
192 N.Y.S.3d 239 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 02090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stratton-nyappdiv-2025.