People v. Wilcox

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wilcox

234 A.D.2d 1007, 652 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13857

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

DecidedDecember 30, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 234 A.D.2d 1007 (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, 234 A.D.2d 1007, 652 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13857 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 3 to 9 years and ordered him to make restitution in the amount of $4,000 and to pay a mandatory surcharge of $155. Defendant waived a hearing on the issue of restitution (see, Penal Law § 60.27 [2]) and did not challenge the amount of restitution sought by the victim. The record before the court was sufficient to support a finding of the appropriate amount (see, People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152; People v Petix, 234 AD2d 994 [decided herewith]; People v Welsher, 154 AD2d 915, 916, Iv denied 74 NY2d 952). Because defendant had not made restitution at the time of sentencing, the court did not err in directing restitution and imposing the mandatory surcharge (see, Penal Law § 60.35 [6]; People v Burks, 195 AD2d 1014, 1015, lv denied 82 NY2d 804; People v De Berry, 117 AD2d 1006). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.—Attempted Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P.,-Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court did not abuse its discretion when it sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of incarceration of 3 to 9 years and ordered him to make restitution in the amount of $4,000 and to pay a mandatory surcharge of $155. Defendant waived a hearing on the issue of restitution (see, Penal Law § 60.27 [2]) and did not challenge the amount of restitution sought by the victim. The record before the court was sufficient to support a finding of the appropriate amount (see, People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152; People v Petix, 234 AD2d 994 [decided herewith]; People v Welsher, 154 AD2d 915, 916, Iv denied 74 NY2d 952). Because defendant had not made restitution at the time of sentencing, the court did not err in directing restitution and imposing the mandatory surcharge (see, Penal Law § 60.35 [6]; People v Burks, 195 AD2d 1014, 1015, lv denied 82 NY2d 804; People v De Berry, 117 AD2d 1006). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J.—Attempted Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P.,-Lawton, Callahan, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 A.D.2d 1007, 652 N.Y.S.2d 680, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13857, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilcox-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack