People v. Vargas

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vargas

4 A.D.3d 492, 771 N.Y.S.2d 675

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

DecidedFebruary 17, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 4 A.D.3d 492 (People v. Vargas) 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. Vargas, 4 A.D.3d 492, 771 N.Y.S.2d 675 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended sentence of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), imposed June 12, 2002, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that the sentence was excessive and should be modified (see People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]).

The defendant was not denied meaningful representation (see [493]*493People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397 [1995]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended sentence of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), imposed June 12, 2002, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of driving while intoxicated in violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1192.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that the sentence was excessive and should be modified (see People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816 [1984]).

The defendant was not denied meaningful representation (see [493]*493People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397 [1995]; People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137 [1981]). Santucci, J.P., Goldstein, Schmidt and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

4 A.D.3d 492, 771 N.Y.S.2d 675, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vargas-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack