People v. Wood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wood

28 A.D.3d 1156, 813 N.Y.S.2d 318

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

DecidedApril 28, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 28 A.D.3d 1156 (People v. Wood) 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. Wood, 28 A.D.3d 1156, 813 N.Y.S.2d 318 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered September 16, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in denying his request for youthful offender status, and we decline his request that we exercise our power to consider that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered September 16, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of sexual abuse in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant concedes that he failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in denying his request for youthful offender status, and we decline his request that we exercise our power to consider that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Hurlbutt, Martoche, Smith and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

28 A.D.3d 1156, 813 N.Y.S.2d 318, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wood-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack