People v. Wilcox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wilcox

106 A.D.2d 526, 483 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21571

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1984

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 106 A.D.2d 526 (People v. Wilcox) 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. Wilcox, 106 A.D.2d 526, 483 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21571 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), imposed January 26, 1984, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years.

Sentence affirmed.

On this record, defendant presents no evidence of either broken promises or prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the District Attorney (see People v Royster, 104 AD2d 1011). Further, as defendant’s contentions include matters which are dehors the record, they may not be considered by this court on direct appeal (see People v Roberts, 89 AD2d 912; People v Johnson, 73 AD2d 652). In any event, defendant’s assertions of prosecutorial misconduct are beyond the scope of this appeal, which is limited to a review of the “legality, propriety or excessiveness of the sentence imposed” (22 NYCRR 670.17 [i]; People v Johnson, supra). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Boyers, 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 motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), imposed January 26, 1984, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a minimum of 1 year and a maximum of 3 years.

Sentence affirmed.

On this record, defendant presents no evidence of either broken promises or prosecutorial misconduct on the part of the District Attorney (see People v Royster, 104 AD2d 1011). Further, as defendant’s contentions include matters which are dehors the record, they may not be considered by this court on direct appeal (see People v Roberts, 89 AD2d 912; People v Johnson, 73 AD2d 652). In any event, defendant’s assertions of prosecutorial misconduct are beyond the scope of this appeal, which is limited to a review of the “legality, propriety or excessiveness of the sentence imposed” (22 NYCRR 670.17 [i]; People v Johnson, supra). Mollen, P. J., Titone, Thompson and Boyers, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 526, 483 N.Y.S.2d 63, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21571, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilcox-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack