People v. Weaver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Weaver

216 A.D.2d 341, 627 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5985

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

DecidedJune 5, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 216 A.D.2d 341 (People v. Weaver) 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. Weaver, 216 A.D.2d 341, 627 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5985 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered September 20, 1994, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree.

[342]*342Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant breached the unambiguous conditions of his plea agreement by being rearrested and charged with new crimes between the plea and sentencing dates, and by failing to appear for resentencing on the scheduled date. Under the circumstances, the court did not err in imposing an enhanced sentence on the defendant (see, e.g., People v Gibbs, 161 AD2d 661; People v Miller, 170 AD2d 464, 465; People v Asencio, 143 AD2d 917, 918).

The defendant’s remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Tisch, J.), rendered September 20, 1994, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted burglary in the second degree.

[342]*342Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant breached the unambiguous conditions of his plea agreement by being rearrested and charged with new crimes between the plea and sentencing dates, and by failing to appear for resentencing on the scheduled date. Under the circumstances, the court did not err in imposing an enhanced sentence on the defendant (see, e.g., People v Gibbs, 161 AD2d 661; People v Miller, 170 AD2d 464, 465; People v Asencio, 143 AD2d 917, 918).

The defendant’s remaining contentions lack merit. Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 341, 627 N.Y.S.2d 993, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5985, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-weaver-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack