People v. Vedder

1 A.D.2d 803, 767 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1 A.D.3d 803, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12636
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 26, 2003
StatusPublished
Cited by7 cases

This text of 1 A.D.2d 803 (People v. Vedder) 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. Vedder, 1 A.D.2d 803, 767 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1 A.D.3d 803, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12636 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Warren County (Austin, J.), rendered May 7, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

As a result of a plea bargain that included the waiver of his right to appeal, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree in satisfaction of a two-count indictment that arose from his participation as the driver of the getaway car during a robbery of a general store. Defendant was sentenced to an agreed-upon prison term of four years and three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, contending that he was improperly denied youthful offender status and the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. We [804]*804affirm. By knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to appeal, defendant has forfeited his right to now argue that he should have been granted youthful offender status (see People v Paolucci, 307 AD2d 479 [2003]) or that his sentence was too severe (see People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Nevertheless, if the merits were addressed, we would find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence considering the violent nature of the crime and the clear indication in the record that the plea was not conditioned on defendant receiving youthful offender treatment (see People v Wade, 297 AD2d 877 [2002]; People v Lloyd, 249 AD2d 623 [1998]).

Cardona, EJ., Crew III, Peters, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Baldwin
36 A.D.3d 1024 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Gillespie
19 A.D.3d 878 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Griffin
17 A.D.3d 927 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Sharlow
12 A.D.3d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Irish
8 A.D.3d 830 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Baker
6 A.D.3d 751 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Lemons
6 A.D.3d 756 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
1 A.D.2d 803, 767 N.Y.S.2d 307, 1 A.D.3d 803, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12636, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vedder-nyappdiv-2003.