People v. Varner

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Varner

39 A.D.3d 882, 832 N.Y.S.2d 818

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

DecidedApril 24, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 39 A.D.3d 882 (People v. Varner) 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. Varner, 39 A.D.3d 882, 832 N.Y.S.2d 818 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), dated October 21, 2005, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court’s determination as to the duration of the order of protection issued pursuant to CPL 530.13 (4) at the time of sentencing failed to take into account his jail-time credit (see People v Pettiford, 1 AD3d 466 [2003]). The defendant, however, failed to preserve this contention for appellate review because he did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the final order of protection on this ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (cf. People v Johnson, 16 AD3d 521 [2005]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Walsh, J.), dated October 21, 2005, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the Supreme Court’s determination as to the duration of the order of protection issued pursuant to CPL 530.13 (4) at the time of sentencing failed to take into account his jail-time credit (see People v Pettiford, 1 AD3d 466 [2003]). The defendant, however, failed to preserve this contention for appellate review because he did not raise this issue at sentencing or move to amend the final order of protection on this ground (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Nieves, 2 NY3d 310, 316-318 [2004]), and we decline to review it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (cf. People v Johnson, 16 AD3d 521 [2005]). Miller, J.P., Ritter, Covello and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.3d 882, 832 N.Y.S.2d 818, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-varner-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack