People v. Trisvan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Trisvan

8 A.D.3d 1067, 778 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8081

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

DecidedJune 14, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 8 A.D.3d 1067 (People v. Trisvan) 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. Trisvan, 8 A.D.3d 1067, 778 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8081 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), rendered January 24, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that the enhanced sentence imposed by County Court is unduly harsh and severe. Contrary to the People’s contention, the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal does not encompass his present contention because the court failed to advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration that could be imposed, including the potential periods of incarceration for an enhanced sentence (see People v Harris, 289 AD2d 1068 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 637 [2002]), before he waived his right to appeal (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Webb, 299 AD2d 955 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 565 [2002]). We conclude, however, that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Defendant’s remaining contention regarding the presentence report is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit (see CPL 390.20 [4] [iii]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Elma A. Bellini, J.), rendered January 24, 2003. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 220.39 [1]), defendant contends that the enhanced sentence imposed by County Court is unduly harsh and severe. Contrary to the People’s contention, the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal does not encompass his present contention because the court failed to advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration that could be imposed, including the potential periods of incarceration for an enhanced sentence (see People v Harris, 289 AD2d 1068 [2001], lv denied 98 NY2d 637 [2002]), before he waived his right to appeal (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827 [1998]; People v Webb, 299 AD2d 955 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 565 [2002]). We conclude, however, that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Defendant’s remaining contention regarding the presentence report is not preserved for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]) and, in any event, is without merit (see CPL 390.20 [4] [iii]). Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Pine, Kehoe, Martoche and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

8 A.D.3d 1067, 778 N.Y.S.2d 398, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-trisvan-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack