People v. Wilder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wilder

300 A.D.2d 1032, 752 N.Y.S.2d 574

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

DecidedDecember 30, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 300 A.D.2d 1032 (People v. Wilder) 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. Wilder, 300 A.D.2d 1032, 752 N.Y.S.2d 574 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Cayuga County Court (Corning, J.), entered February 22, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the bargained-for sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Gorski, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Cayuga County Court (Corning, J.), entered February 22, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that he was denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial (see CPL 470.05 [2]). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, the bargained-for sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Pine, Hayes and Gorski, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

300 A.D.2d 1032, 752 N.Y.S.2d 574, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wilder-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack