From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Shelton

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Mar 19, 2021
192 A.D.3d 1506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)

Opinion

323 KA 20-00139

03-19-2021

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kenneth C. SHELTON, Sr., Defendant-Appellant.

DAVID P. ELKOVITCH, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. KENNETH C. SHELTON, SR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE. JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.


DAVID P. ELKOVITCH, AUBURN, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

KENNETH C. SHELTON, SR., DEFENDANT-APPELLANT PRO SE.

JON E. BUDELMANN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, AUBURN (CHRISTOPHER T. VALDINA OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CURRAN, WINSLOW, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his guilty plea, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree ( Penal Law § 220.16 [1] ) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (§ 220.39 [1]). Defendant contends in his main and pro se supplemental briefs that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence based upon his failure to appear at sentencing because the court did not sufficiently warn him about the consequences of his failure to appear. Defendant, however, failed to preserve his contention for our review inasmuch as he did not object to the enhanced sentence or move to withdraw his guilty plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v. Couturier , 177 A.D.3d 1320, 1320-1321, 110 N.Y.S.3d 355 [4th Dept. 2019], lv denied 34 N.Y.3d 1127, 118 N.Y.S.3d 539, 141 N.E.3d 495 [2020] ; People v. Hernandez , 161 A.D.3d 1548, 1549, 73 N.Y.S.3d 921 [4th Dept. 2018] ), and contrary to defendant's further contention in his main brief, the court's alleged failure does not constitute a mode of proceedings error for which preservation is not required. We decline to exercise our power to review the contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c] ).

Contrary to defendant's contention in his main brief, the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. We have reviewed the remaining contentions of defendant raised in his pro se supplemental brief and conclude that they are without merit.


Summaries of

People v. Shelton

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Mar 19, 2021
192 A.D.3d 1506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
Case details for

People v. Shelton

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. KENNETH C. SHELTON…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Mar 19, 2021

Citations

192 A.D.3d 1506 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021)
192 A.D.3d 1506
2021 N.Y. Slip Op. 1626

Citing Cases

People v. Shelton

Disposition: Applications for Criminal Leave to appeal denied Decision Reported Below: 4th Dept: 192 A.D.3d…

People v. Bishop

Defendant contends in both appeals that County Court erred in imposing enhanced sentences because the court's…