People v. Tyler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tyler

275 A.D.2d 947, 715 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9669

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 275 A.D.2d 947 (People v. Tyler) 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. Tyler, 275 A.D.2d 947, 715 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9669 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in sentencing him as a second felony offender without conducting a hearing to determine whether, as a result of the tolling provision set forth in Penal Law § 70.06 (1) (b) (v), defendant’s prior felony conviction was within the 10-year period set forth in Penal Law § 70.06 (1) (b) (iv). That contention is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We note that our determination is without prejudice to a motion to set aside the sentence as illegal (see, CPL 440.20). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Forgery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that County Court erred in sentencing him as a second felony offender without conducting a hearing to determine whether, as a result of the tolling provision set forth in Penal Law § 70.06 (1) (b) (v), defendant’s prior felony conviction was within the 10-year period set forth in Penal Law § 70.06 (1) (b) (iv). That contention is not preserved for our review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]), and we decline to exercise our power to review it as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). We note that our determination is without prejudice to a motion to set aside the sentence as illegal (see, CPL 440.20). (Appeal from Judgment of Ontario County Court, Harvey, J. — Forgery, 2nd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Pine, Wisner, Kehoe and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

275 A.D.2d 947, 715 N.Y.S.2d 185, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9669, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tyler-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack