People v. Walters

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Walters

83 A.D.3d 1107, 921 N.Y.S.2d 560

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

DecidedApril 26, 2011

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 83 A.D.3d 1107 (People v. Walters) 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. Walters, 83 A.D.3d 1107, 921 N.Y.S.2d 560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 26, 2010, convicting him of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the County Court correctly determined that Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a) required that the defendant’s sentence run consecutively to his previously imposed undischarged sentence, the defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in failing to consider whether it should order the sentences to run concurrently is without merit (see Penal Law §§ 70.06, 70.25 [2-a]; Matter of Ramos v Connolly, 74 AD3d 1080 [2010]; People v Paugam, 57 AD3d 1012 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Lott and Roman, 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, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 26, 2010, convicting him of attempted promoting prison contraband in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the County Court correctly determined that Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a) required that the defendant’s sentence run consecutively to his previously imposed undischarged sentence, the defendant’s contention that the County Court erred in failing to consider whether it should order the sentences to run concurrently is without merit (see Penal Law §§ 70.06, 70.25 [2-a]; Matter of Ramos v Connolly, 74 AD3d 1080 [2010]; People v Paugam, 57 AD3d 1012 [2008]). Dillon, J.P., Covello, Balkin, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

83 A.D.3d 1107, 921 N.Y.S.2d 560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-walters-nyappdiv-2011.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack