From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Ackerley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 19, 2002
297 A.D.2d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)

Opinion

13257

September 19, 2002.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (La Buda, J.), rendered October 28, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of rape in the first degree and burglary in the first degree.

Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant.

Stephen F. Lungen, District Attorney, Monticello (Bonnie M. Mitzner of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant entered a plea agreement pursuant to which he pleaded guilty to the crimes of rape in the first degree and burglary in the first degree in full satisfaction of a nine-count indictment, waiving his right to appeal. County Court imposed the agreed-upon determinate prison term of 15 years on each of the charges, to be served concurrently.

Defendant appeals, contending that the sentence imposed by County Court is harsh and excessive. This issue, however, has not been preserved for our review as defendant knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal when he entered his guilty plea (see People v. Langton, 263 A.D.2d 548, lv denied 94 N.Y.2d 825; People v. Leibach, 249 A.D.2d 636,lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 880). If we were to consider this contention, however, we would find it to be without merit. The sentence was the result of a favorable plea agreement pursuant to which seven additional counts of the indictment were dropped (see People v. Russell, 249 A.D.2d 628; People v. Nichols, 245 A.D.2d 889, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 1011). This fact, together with the repugnant nature of defendant's criminal acts (he broke into the victim's apartment at night, slashed her hands with a box cutter, and raped her in front of her two children) and the lack of extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention in the interest of justice, dictate that the sentence imposed by County Court should not be disturbed (see People v. Appollonia, 247 A.D.2d 770, 771, lv denied 92 N.Y.2d 847).

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Ackerley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 19, 2002
297 A.D.2d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
Case details for

People v. Ackerley

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. TIMOTHY J. ACKERLEY…

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

Date published: Sep 19, 2002

Citations

297 A.D.2d 861 (N.Y. App. Div. 2002)
746 N.Y.S.2d 920

Citing Cases

People v. Young

Under these circumstances, we find that the plea was knowing, voluntary and intelligent. Defendant's claim of…

People v. Stauber

Because we find the indictment valid, we reject defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel argument based…