People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Williams

70 A.D.3d 733, 892 N.Y.S.2d 866

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2010

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 70 A.D.3d 733 (People v. Williams) 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. Williams, 70 A.D.3d 733, 892 N.Y.S.2d 866 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered November 14, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[734]*734Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the express understanding that if he failed to successfully complete a Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Program, the County Court would impose the enhanced sentence of which he now complains, he has “no basis now to complain that his sentence was excessive” (People v Melendez-Smith, 66 AD3d 1042,1043 [2009]; see People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]; People v Billups, 63 AD3d 750 [2009]). In any event, under the circumstances, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982] ). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kelly, J.), rendered November 14, 2007, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

[734]*734Since the defendant pleaded guilty with the express understanding that if he failed to successfully complete a Drug Treatment Alternative-to-Prison Program, the County Court would impose the enhanced sentence of which he now complains, he has “no basis now to complain that his sentence was excessive” (People v Melendez-Smith, 66 AD3d 1042,1043 [2009]; see People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]; People v Billups, 63 AD3d 750 [2009]). In any event, under the circumstances, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982] ). Rivera, J.P., Covello, Angiolillo, Leventhal and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

70 A.D.3d 733, 892 N.Y.S.2d 866, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williams-nyappdiv-2010.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack