From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Tulko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 1987
135 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Opinion

December 28, 1987

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence imposed on count 21 of the indictment from a term of 2 1/2 years' to 7 1/2 years' imprisonment to a term of 2 1/3 years' to 7 years' imprisonment, and by reversing the convictions on counts 31 through 41 of the indictment, vacating the sentences imposed thereon, and dismissing those counts of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Although the indictment filed against the defendant and her codefendant contains 41 counts, and although the defendant pleaded guilty to the indictment as charged, the court was totally without jurisdiction to sentence her on counts 31 through 41. Those latter counts accused only the codefendant of the crimes for which the defendant was sentenced. Nor was the court authorized to impose a sentence of from 2 1/2 to 7 1/2 years' imprisonment on count 21. By her plea to that count, the defendant stood convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree, a class D violent felony (Penal Law § 130.65; see also, Penal Law § 70.02 [c]). The maximum permissible sentence for that crime is from 2 1/3 to 7 years (Penal Law § 70.02 [b]; see also, Penal Law § 70.00).

The record demonstrates that the defendant's plea of guilty to the first 30 counts of the indictment, entered during the course of the trial against the defendant and the codefendant, was neither improvident nor baseless. By her plea, the defendant waived the right to challenge errors allegedly made during the trial (see, People v Thomas, 74 A.D.2d 317, affd 53 N.Y.2d 338). By failing to move to withdraw her plea, she has failed to preserve for appellate review the alleged deficiencies in the plea allocution (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636; People v Moore, 91 A.D.2d 1050; People v Ebron, 87 A.D.2d 653). Finally, we discern no basis for disturbing the sentences validly imposed (People v Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816). Thompson, J.P., Eiber, Sullivan and Harwood, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Tulko

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Dec 28, 1987
135 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)
Case details for

People v. Tulko

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOANNE TULKO, Appellant

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

Date published: Dec 28, 1987

Citations

135 A.D.2d 851 (N.Y. App. Div. 1987)

Citing Cases

People v. Velazquez

Although it appears that criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree was among the original counts of…