People v. Waleski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Waleski

28 A.D.3d 1159, 813 N.Y.S.2d 319

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

DecidedApril 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 1159 (People v. Waleski) 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. Waleski, 28 A.D.3d 1159, 813 N.Y.S.2d 319 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered March 11, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court abused its discretion in denying his application for youthful offender status (see People v Ali, 24 AD3d 1299 [2005]) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit. The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered March 11, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court abused its discretion in denying his application for youthful offender status (see People v Ali, 24 AD3d 1299 [2005]) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit. The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Gorski and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 1159, 813 N.Y.S.2d 319, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-waleski-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack