People v. Woodall

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Woodall

145 A.D.2d 921, 538 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13936

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

DecidedDecember 23, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 145 A.D.2d 921 (People v. Woodall) 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. Woodall, 145 A.D.2d 921, 538 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13936 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s claim that he was sentenced improperly is without merit. The People filed a predicate felony information and, prior to sentencing, defendant was asked if he wished to controvert the charges in the information. Defendant, by standing mute, admitted the charges and no hearing was required (CPL 400.21 [3]; People v Santana, 104 AD2d 677; see also, People v Tumminia, 101 AD2d 605). At sentencing, defendant again elected to stand mute, and the court properly imposed sentences based upon defendant’s status as a second felony offender.

We have reviewed the remaining claims advanced in the brief submitted by defendant’s counsel and in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that the issues either were not preserved for appeal (CPL 470.05 [2]) or that they lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — rape, first degree, and other charges.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant’s claim that he was sentenced improperly is without merit. The People filed a predicate felony information and, prior to sentencing, defendant was asked if he wished to controvert the charges in the information. Defendant, by standing mute, admitted the charges and no hearing was required (CPL 400.21 [3]; People v Santana, 104 AD2d 677; see also, People v Tumminia, 101 AD2d 605). At sentencing, defendant again elected to stand mute, and the court properly imposed sentences based upon defendant’s status as a second felony offender.

We have reviewed the remaining claims advanced in the brief submitted by defendant’s counsel and in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief, and conclude that the issues either were not preserved for appeal (CPL 470.05 [2]) or that they lack merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — rape, first degree, and other charges.) Present— Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Balio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

145 A.D.2d 921, 538 N.Y.S.2d 708, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13936, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-woodall-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack