People v. Millard

7 Citing cases

  1. People v. Smith

    87 A.D.3d 1203 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)   Cited 4 times

    In addition, she has exhibited violent tendencies given the manner in which she snatched a purse from an elderly woman thereby causing her injury. In view of this, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the resentence in the interest of justice ( see People v. Khan, 82 A.D.3d 1362, 918 N.Y.S.2d 392 [2011]; People v. Hunter, 62 A.D.3d 1207, 1208, 879 N.Y.S.2d 626 [2009]; People v. Millard, 279 A.D.2d 807, 808, 718 N.Y.S.2d 904 [2001], lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 803, 726 N.Y.S.2d 381, 750 N.E.2d 83 [2001] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

  2. People v. Donahue

    21 A.D.3d 1359 (N.Y. App. Div. 2005)   Cited 4 times   1 Legal Analyses

    In any event, we conclude that defendant's contention is without merit ( see generally People v. Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 280). The further contention of defendant that he did not understand the ramifications of the sentence imposed by County Court is unpreserved for our review ( see People v. Millard, 279 AD2d 807, 808, lv denied 96 NY2d 803), and we decline to exercise our power to address that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice ( see CPL 470.15 [a]). Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention concerning the alleged factual insufficiency of the plea allocution ( see People v. Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665; People v. Waller [appeal No. 1], 288 AD2d 950, lv denied 97 NY2d 710) and, in any event, that contention is encompassed by defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v. Thelbert, 17 AD3d 1049). To the extent that the contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel is properly before us ( see People v. Burke, 256 AD2d 1244, lv denied 93 NY2d 851), we conclude that defendant "receive[d] an advantageous plea and nothing in the record casts doubt on the apparent effectiveness of counsel" ( People v. Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 404). Finally, the valid waiver by defendant of the right to appeal encompasses his contention c

  3. People v. Suib

    289 A.D.2d 871 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 1 times

    We reject defendant's contention that the prison sentence imposed by County Court was harsh and excessive, citing in particular his poor state of health and that of his wife. Defendant has amply demonstrated his inability or unwillingness to comply with the terms of his probation despite County Court's admonishment when he was initially sentenced to probation that violation of any of the probationary conditions would subject him to the maximum prison term of 2 to 7 years. Under the circumstances presented here, the sentence was appropriate and we find no reason to disturb it (see, People v. Medinilla, 279 A.D.2d 891, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 803; People v. Millard, 279 A.D.2d 807, 808, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 803). Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

  4. People v. Barkley

    289 A.D.2d 880 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 4 times

    Defendant appeals. In light of defendant's extensive criminal history and inability to abide by the conditions of probation, we are unpersuaded by her assertion that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive (see, People v. Medinilla, 279 A.D.2d 891, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 803; People v. Millard, 279 A.D.2d 807, 808, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 803). Moreover, our review of the record reveals no extraordinary circumstances to warrant a reduction of the sentence imposed in the interest of justice (see, People v. Dolphy, 257 A.D.2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 872). Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur.

  5. People v. Mitchell

    289 A.D.2d 776 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 26 times

    "Where a sentence is within permissible statutory ranges, it will not be disturbed unless the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting modification * * *" (People v. Hines, 277 A.D.2d 504, 505, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 759 [citations omitted]). Here, given the brutal nature of the crime perpetrated on a helpless infant and the evidence presented, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v. Millard, 279 A.D.2d 807, lv denied 96 N.Y.2d 803). All remaining arguments raised by defendant and not specifically addressed herein have been examined and found to be without merit.

  6. People v. Shomb

    285 A.D.2d 837 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 4 times

    Here, defendant was sentenced to a term within the permissible statutory range (see, Penal Law ยง 70.00 [d]) and she fails to cite any additional circumstances that would warrant modification by this Court. In light of these factors and defendant's long history of alcohol-related offenses, we decline to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v. Millard, 279 A.D.2d 807, 807). Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Crew III and Mugglin, JJ., concur.

  7. People v. Woods

    281 A.D.2d 929 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)   Cited 3 times

    Memorandum: By failing to move either to withdraw his plea of guilty to a violation of probation or to vacate the judgment of conviction, defendant failed to preserve for our review his present contention that the plea was not voluntary ( see, People v. Millard, 279 A.D.2d 807 [decided Jan. 18, 2001]; People v. Bryant, 262 A.D.2d 791). In any event, the record supports the conclusion that the plea was voluntary ( see, People v. Millard, supra; cf., People v. Bryant, supra).