AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Judges

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. KAREN M. AUSTIN, Defendant-Appellant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and grand larceny in the fourth degree (§ 155.30 [1]). She contends that County Court erred in sentencing her as a second felony offender based on her prior burglary conviction in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania because that conviction was not the equivalent of a felony in New York. Defendant failed to controvert the allegations in the predicate felony statement at the time of sentencing ( see CPL 400.21), however, and thus has failed to preserve that contention for our review ( see People v. Smith, 73 N.Y.2d 961; People v. Acoff, 289 A.D.2d 1085, lv denied 98 N.Y.2d 635). There is no support in the record for the further contention of defendant that the court failed to sentence her in accordance with a sentencing promise and, indeed, the terms of incarceration imposed were well within the statutorilymandated limits ( see Penal Law § 70.06[d], [e]; [4][b]).

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. AUSTIN
(Nov 21, 2003)