From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Lambe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 5, 2001
282 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

April 5, 2001.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (La Buda, J.), rendered December 2, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

John J. Goodman, Greenwich, for appellant.

Stephen F. Lungen, District Attorney (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), Monticello, for respondent.

Before: Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of a 12-count indictment charging him with various drug-related crimes. Defendant's guilty plea was entered with the understanding that he would be sentenced to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 3 to 9 years and waive his right to appeal. Defendant was sentenced in accordance with the terms of the plea bargain but now appeals claiming his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered.

We affirm. Inasmuch as defendant failed to move to either withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction, he has not preserved his claim for our review (see, People v. McFadgen, 274 A.D.2d 830, 832, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 966 [Dec. 5, 2000]; People v. Ferreri, 271 A.D.2d 805, 805, lv denied 95 N.Y.2d 834). Nevertheless, were we to consider the merits we would not find that County Court employed threats or coercion to induce defendant to enter a plea. The fact that the court informed defendant of the potential sentence to which he was exposed under the indictment does not render the guilty plea involuntary (see, People v. Campbell, 236 A.D.2d 877, 878; People v. Mackey, 175 A.D.2d 346, 347, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 969). Furthermore, we reject defendant's claim that the sentence is harsh and excessive. The sentence, which is well within statutory guidelines, was agreed to by defendant as part of the plea bargain and we perceive no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction in the interest of justice (see,People v. Squire, 273 A.D.2d 706; People v. Turley, 267 A.D.2d 600, 601,lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 926).

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Lambe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Apr 5, 2001
282 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Lambe

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. THOMAS LAMBE, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 5, 2001

Citations

282 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
722 N.Y.S.2d 437

Citing Cases

People v. Seuffert

In his motion to withdraw his plea, defendant contended that he agreed to plead guilty in exchange for a…

People v. Robertson

We affirm. Defendant's challenge to her guilty plea is premised solely on her claim that the plea was not…