People v. Zimblis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zimblis

23 A.D.3d 1086, 803 N.Y.S.2d 502

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 10, 2005·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Robert C. Noonan, J.), rendered May 11, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

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

[1087] Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his Alford plea (see North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25 [1970]), of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]). Defendant contends that there was an insufficient recitation by the prosecutor concerning the facts underlying the crime to support the Alford plea (cf. People v Harris, 269 AD2d 839, 840 [2000]). That contention is unpreserved for our review (see People v Oberdorf, 5 AD3d 1000 [2004]), and we decline to exercise our power to address that . contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (cf. id.). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, 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 May 11, 2004. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

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

[1087] Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his Alford plea (see North Carolina v Alford, 400 US 25 [1970]), of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (Penal Law § 265.02 [1]). Defendant contends that there was an insufficient recitation by the prosecutor concerning the facts underlying the crime to support the Alford plea (cf. People v Harris, 269 AD2d 839, 840 [2000]). That contention is unpreserved for our review (see People v Oberdorf, 5 AD3d 1000 [2004]), and we decline to exercise our power to address that . contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (cf. id.). Finally, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present—Green, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Gorski, JJ.

People v. Zimblis, 23 A.D.3d 1086, 803 N.Y.S.2d 502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

23 A.D.3d 1086 (People v. Zimblis) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related