People v. Vazqueztell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vazqueztell

273 A.D.2d 328, 710 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6467

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

DecidedJune 12, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 328 (People v. Vazqueztell) 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. Vazqueztell, 273 A.D.2d 328, 710 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6467 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered May 4, 1998, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to object to the procedure utilized by the court in determining the amount of restitution. Therefore, his challenge on appeal is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281). In any event, since the defendant agreed at his plea allocution to the amount of restitution imposed by the court, the court did not err in imposing restitution without conducting a hearing (see, People v Bushati, 246 AD2d 663; People v Ali, 233 AD2d 517). In addition, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Vaughn, J.), rendered May 4, 1998, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant failed to object to the procedure utilized by the court in determining the amount of restitution. Therefore, his challenge on appeal is unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281). In any event, since the defendant agreed at his plea allocution to the amount of restitution imposed by the court, the court did not err in imposing restitution without conducting a hearing (see, People v Bushati, 246 AD2d 663; People v Ali, 233 AD2d 517). In addition, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Bracken, J. P., Joy, Thompson, Goldstein and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 328, 710 N.Y.S.2d 539, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6467, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vazqueztell-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack