From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Squire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 29, 2000
273 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)

Opinion

June 29, 2000.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered April 9, 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.

Michael C. Ross, Bloomingburg, for appellant.

Beth G. Cozzolino, District Attorney (Kenneth L. Golden of counsel), Hudson, for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER


In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, and with no promise regarding sentence, defendant entered a plea of guilty to two counts of that indictment charging criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. He was thereafter sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent terms of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years. On this appeal, defendant contends that the indictment was insufficient and the sentence harsh and excessive.

Insofar as defendant's argument regarding the sufficiency of the allegations of the indictment raises a jurisdictional claim, the indictment's incorporation by reference to provisions of the Penal Law allegedly violated operates, without more, to sufficiently set forth all the elements of the crimes charged (see, People v. Ray, 71 N.Y.2d 849, 850; People v. Cohen, 52 N.Y.2d 584, 586). Thus, the indictment provided fair notice of the charges to defendant (see, People v. Ray, supra, at 850). We further note that any claim regarding the factual sufficiency of the jurisdictionally sufficient accusatory instrument was waived by defendant's guilty plea (see, People v. Cohen, supra, at 587;People v. George, 261 A.D.2d 711, 713, lv denied 93 N.Y.2d 1018).

With regard to the sentence, which was well within the permissible statutory range, the record discloses neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor extraordinary circumstances warranting modification. Therefore, it will not be disturbed (see, People v. Brown, 249 A.D.2d 835, 838; People v. Tracey, 221 A.D.2d 738, 738, lv denied 88 N.Y.2d 943).

Mercure, Peters, Spain and Carpinello, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Squire

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 29, 2000
273 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
Case details for

People v. Squire

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DARREN SQUIRE…

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

Date published: Jun 29, 2000

Citations

273 A.D.2d 706 (N.Y. App. Div. 2000)
711 N.Y.S.2d 790

Citing Cases

The People v. Lewis

"While no particular form is constitutionally mandated, an indictment must afford a defendant ‘fair notice of…

People v. Stahl

An indictment is jurisdictionally defective only if it does not effectively charge the defendant with the…