People v. Waring

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Waring

126 A.D.3d 621, 3 N.Y.S.3d 606

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

DecidedMarch 26, 2015

Docket1295/11 14637A 3494/11 14637

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.3d 621 (People v. Waring) 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. Waring, 126 A.D.3d 621, 3 N.Y.S.3d 606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J.), rendered on September 26, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Although we do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s challenge to imposition of the mandatory surcharge is premature; it should be raised in the sentencing court by a motion for resentencing at the end of defendant’s incarceration, and not on direct appeal (People v Bradley, 249 AD2d 103 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 923 [1998]).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J.), rendered on September 26, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his pleas of guilty, of robbery in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to an aggregate term of five years, unanimously affirmed.

Although we do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of the right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Defendant’s challenge to imposition of the mandatory surcharge is premature; it should be raised in the sentencing court by a motion for resentencing at the end of defendant’s incarceration, and not on direct appeal (People v Bradley, 249 AD2d 103 [1st Dept 1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 923 [1998]).

Concur — Gonzalez, P.J., Acosta, Moskowitz, Richter and Feinman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 621, 3 N.Y.S.3d 606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-waring-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack