From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Piediscalzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2001
287 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)

Opinion

Submitted September 26, 2001.

October 15, 2001.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Ohlig, J.), rendered October 21, 1999, convicting him of assault in the first degree, assault in the second degree, and endangering the welfare of a child, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Robert C. Mitchell, Riverhead, N.Y. (James H. Miller III of counsel), for appellant.

James M. Catterson, Jr., District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Sean F. Conroy of counsel), for respondent.

Before: CORNELIUS J. O'BRIEN, J.P., SONDRA MILLER, LEO F. McGINITY, ROBERT W. SCHMIDT, SANDRA L. TOWNES, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention regarding the validity of his plea as he did not move to withdraw his plea of guilty or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see, People v. Gilchrist, 280 A.D.2d 488; People v. Naglieri, 262 A.D.2d 426), and we decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.

The defendant's contention that his sentence was excessive is without merit (see, People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816).

O'BRIEN, J.P., S. MILLER, McGINITY, SCHMIDT and TOWNES, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Piediscalzo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Oct 15, 2001
287 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
Case details for

People v. Piediscalzo

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. THOMAS PIEDISCALZO, appellant

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

Date published: Oct 15, 2001

Citations

287 A.D.2d 582 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001)
731 N.Y.S.2d 656

Citing Cases

People v. Wilson

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty should be vacated on the ground that the Supreme Court failed…

People v. Potter

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention…