People v. Wetmore

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wetmore

51 A.D.2d 591, 379 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10890

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

DecidedJanuary 26, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 591 (People v. Wetmore) 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. Wetmore, 51 A.D.2d 591, 379 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10890 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Westchester County, imposed December 30, 1974. Sentence affirmed. The sentence imposed by the County Court was neither unlawful nor excessive. We note, however, that we have not considered defendant’s other arguments. Where a defendant alleges an off-the-record sentence promise, or a misunderstanding on his part at the time of sentencing as to the date of his release (see People v Simmons, 40 AD2d 563), the proper vehicle for relief is a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.30 and not an appeal from the underlying judgment or sentence. Furthermore, we may not now review defendant’s claims that the Department of Correctional Services has improperly computed the date of his ultimate release. If defendant is aggrieved by its actions, his remedy is an article 78 or habeas corpus proceeding. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Westchester County, imposed December 30, 1974. Sentence affirmed. The sentence imposed by the County Court was neither unlawful nor excessive. We note, however, that we have not considered defendant’s other arguments. Where a defendant alleges an off-the-record sentence promise, or a misunderstanding on his part at the time of sentencing as to the date of his release (see People v Simmons, 40 AD2d 563), the proper vehicle for relief is a motion to vacate the judgment pursuant to CPL 440.10 and 440.30 and not an appeal from the underlying judgment or sentence. Furthermore, we may not now review defendant’s claims that the Department of Correctional Services has improperly computed the date of his ultimate release. If defendant is aggrieved by its actions, his remedy is an article 78 or habeas corpus proceeding. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Christ and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 591, 379 N.Y.S.2d 114, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10890, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wetmore-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack