People v. Wheeler

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wheeler

49 A.D.3d 1230, 852 N.Y.2d 873

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

DecidedMarch 14, 2008

DocketAppeal No. 1

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 49 A.D.3d 1230 (People v. Wheeler) 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. Wheeler, 49 A.D.3d 1230, 852 N.Y.2d 873 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

[1231]*1231Memorandum: In each appeal, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [former (4)]). Although defendant is correct that the sentence imposed in each appeal does not correspond to County Court’s sentencing commitment, we conclude that the error was ministerial, “it being clear from the plea minutes that the court inadvertently transposed the sentences it intended to impose” (People v Rodriguez, 216 AD2d 40, 41 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 874 [1995]). We therefore modify the judgment in each appeal accordingly. Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

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

[1231]*1231Memorandum: In each appeal, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [former (4)]). Although defendant is correct that the sentence imposed in each appeal does not correspond to County Court’s sentencing commitment, we conclude that the error was ministerial, “it being clear from the plea minutes that the court inadvertently transposed the sentences it intended to impose” (People v Rodriguez, 216 AD2d 40, 41 [1995], lv denied 86 NY2d 874 [1995]). We therefore modify the judgment in each appeal accordingly. Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the bargained-for sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present— Scudder, P.J., Hurlbutt, Lunn, Pine and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.3d 1230, 852 N.Y.2d 873, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wheeler-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack