People v. Wolmart

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wolmart

140 A.D.2d 733, 529 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6141

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

DecidedMay 31, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 733 (People v. Wolmart) 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. Wolmart, 140 A.D.2d 733, 529 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6141 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

By failing to raise an objection to his adjudication as a second violent felony offender at the time of sentencing or in his motion for resentencing, the defendant has failed to preserve his claim for appellate review (People v Lemon, 62 NY2d 745, 746; People v Febos, 122 AD2d 497, lv denied 68 NY2d 812; People v Harris, 110 AD2d 660). We note, in any event, that the crime which formed the predicate for the defendant’s 1974 conviction was essentially the same as the present Penal Law § 265.01 (4). Accordingly, at the time the defendant committed the instant offense, he stood convicted of one of the offenses designated as a violent felony offense pursuant to Penal Law § 70.02 (1) (c) such that he was properly sentenced as a second violent felony offender (see, People v Balfour, 95 AD2d 812, 813).

Inasmuch as the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.

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

By failing to raise an objection to his adjudication as a second violent felony offender at the time of sentencing or in his motion for resentencing, the defendant has failed to preserve his claim for appellate review (People v Lemon, 62 NY2d 745, 746; People v Febos, 122 AD2d 497, lv denied 68 NY2d 812; People v Harris, 110 AD2d 660). We note, in any event, that the crime which formed the predicate for the defendant’s 1974 conviction was essentially the same as the present Penal Law § 265.01 (4). Accordingly, at the time the defendant committed the instant offense, he stood convicted of one of the offenses designated as a violent felony offense pursuant to Penal Law § 70.02 (1) (c) such that he was properly sentenced as a second violent felony offender (see, People v Balfour, 95 AD2d 812, 813).

Inasmuch as the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed, he has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Weinstein and Harwood, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 733, 529 N.Y.S.2d 40, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6141, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wolmart-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack