People v. Marshall

4 Citing cases

  1. People v. Lowe

    89 A.D.3d 1280 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    However, the record does not reflect that defendant waived her right to appeal either orally or in writing. To the extent that defendant challenges the voluntariness of the plea, that issue is unpreserved as she did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Haskins, 86 A.D.3d 794, 796, 928 N.Y.S.2d 374 [2011] ), and we do not find the narrow exception to the preservation rule applicable ( see People v. Scribner, 77 A.D.3d 1022, 1023, 908 N.Y.S.2d 763 [2010], lv. denied 16 N.Y.3d 746, 917 N.Y.S.2d 627, 942 N.E.2d 1052 [2011] ). Finally, given defendant's extensive criminal history, her repeated failure to comply with the terms of the plea agreement to successfully participate in and complete rehabilitation (which required the issuance of two bench warrants) and her continued criminal conduct, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence ( see e.g. People v. Marshall, 246 A.D.2d 698, 666 N.Y.S.2d 522 [1998] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

  2. People v. Lowe

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8236 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

    However, the record does not reflect that defendant waived her right to appeal either orally or in writing. To the extent that defendant challenges the voluntariness of the plea, that issue is unpreserved as she did not move to withdraw the plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Haskins , 86 AD3d 794, 796), and we do not find the narrow exception to the preservation rule applicable (see People v Scribner , 77 AD3d 1022, 1023, lv denied 16 NY3d 746). Finally, given defendant's extensive criminal history, her repeated failure to comply with the terms of the plea agreement to successfully participate in and complete rehabilitation (which required the issuance of two bench warrants) and her continued criminal conduct, we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence ( see e.g. People v Marshall, 246 AD2d 698). Mercure, J.P., Malone Jr., Stein and Egan Jr., JJ., concur.

  3. People v. Layton

    270 A.D.2d 714 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)   Cited 1 times

    Moreover, inasmuch as defendant stated on the record that he had conferred with his attorney regarding the ramifications of his plea and that he was entering his guilty plea freely and voluntarily, we find no basis for vacating the guilty plea (see,id.). Finally, given his lengthy criminal history and the fact that he violated his probation, we see no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v. Upson, 251 A.D.2d 818;People v. Marshall, 246 A.D.2d 698). Cardona, P.J., Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

  4. People v. Ryan P

    257 A.D.2d 771 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

    We reject defendant's contentions that County Court erred by failing to obtain an updated presentence report and that the sentence imposed was excessive. Defense counsel declined the court's offer to order an updated presentence report and consented to the court proceeding immediately to sentence ( see, People v. Moon, 225 A.D.2d 826, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 939). Finally, given defendant's violent criminal history and his demonstrated inability to comply with the conditions of his probation, we cannot conclude that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive ( see, People v. Marshall, 246 A.D.2d 698). We have reviewed defendant's remaining arguments and find them to be lacking in merit.