People v. Whittaker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Whittaker

34 A.D.3d 332, 824 N.Y.S.2d 271

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

DecidedNovember 16, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.3d 332 (People v. Whittaker) 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. Whittaker, 34 A.D.3d 332, 824 N.Y.S.2d 271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J), rendered April 12, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 21js to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contentions regarding the alleged violation of his plea agreement are unpreserved since he raised no such claims at sentencing but merely asked for leniency (see e.g. People v Lopez, 290 AD2d 323 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 757 [2002]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that record establishes defendant’s failure to fulfill his obligations under the agreement, which authorized the court to impose the maximum lawful sentence (id.).

On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Concur—Friedman, J.P, Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J), rendered April 12, 2005, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted grand larceny in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 21js to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contentions regarding the alleged violation of his plea agreement are unpreserved since he raised no such claims at sentencing but merely asked for leniency (see e.g. People v Lopez, 290 AD2d 323 [2002], lv denied 97 NY2d 757 [2002]), and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. Were we to review these claims, we would find that record establishes defendant’s failure to fulfill his obligations under the agreement, which authorized the court to impose the maximum lawful sentence (id.).

On the existing record, to the extent it permits review, we find that defendant received effective assistance under the state and federal standards (see People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714 [1998]; People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404 [1995]; see also Strickland v Washington, 466 US 668 [1984]). Concur—Friedman, J.P, Williams, Gonzalez, Sweeny and McGuire, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.3d 332, 824 N.Y.S.2d 271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whittaker-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack