People v. Wadiak

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wadiak

105 A.D.3d 572, 962 N.Y.S.2d 902

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

DecidedApril 18, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 572 (People v. Wadiak) 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. Wadiak, 105 A.D.3d 572, 962 N.Y.S.2d 902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J), rendered September 29, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two years, with two years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender. A review of the Pennsylvania accusatory instrument establishes that his conviction in that state was for the equivalent of the New York felony of grand larceny in the fourth degree (see [573]*573People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586, 590-591 [1984]; People v Tyler, 4 AD3d 183 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 808 [2004]). The theft of over $2,000 is an essential element of defendant’s Pennsylvania felony, and his present argument to the contrary is unavailing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Richard D. Carruthers, J), rendered September 29, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of two years, with two years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender. A review of the Pennsylvania accusatory instrument establishes that his conviction in that state was for the equivalent of the New York felony of grand larceny in the fourth degree (see [573]*573People v Gonzalez, 61 NY2d 586, 590-591 [1984]; People v Tyler, 4 AD3d 183 [1st Dept 2004], lv denied 2 NY3d 808 [2004]). The theft of over $2,000 is an essential element of defendant’s Pennsylvania felony, and his present argument to the contrary is unavailing.

We perceive no basis for reducing the term of postrelease supervision.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Sweeny, Saxe, Román and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 572, 962 N.Y.S.2d 902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wadiak-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack