From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 2006
27 A.D.3d 1158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)

Opinion

KA 04-02538.

March 17, 2006.

Appeal from a judgment of the Cayuga County Court (Peter E. Corning, J.), rendered November 9, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree and reckless endangerment in the first degree.

MICHAEL G. CONROY, WATERLOO, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JAMES B. VARGASON, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHARLES M. THOMAS OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.

Before: Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Green, JJ.


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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree (Penal Law § 165.50) and reckless endangerment in the first degree (§ 120.25). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in imposing consecutive sentences ( see CPL 470.05) and, in any event, that contention lacks merit ( see People v. Brown, 80 NY2d 361, 363-364; see generally People v. Montstream, 21 AD3d 1353, 1354). The sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.


Summaries of

People v. Rice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 17, 2006
27 A.D.3d 1158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
Case details for

People v. Rice

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ROBERT R. RICE…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 17, 2006

Citations

27 A.D.3d 1158 (N.Y. App. Div. 2006)
2006 N.Y. Slip Op. 2021
810 N.Y.S.2d 723

Citing Cases

Price v. Kirkpatrick

The Appellate Division held that petitioner failed to preserve the issue for appellate review. Price, 33…

People v. Price

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