People v. Bagley
| Decision Date | 19 March 1987 |
| Citation | 513 N.Y.S.2d 291,128 A.D.2d 980 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Rodney BAGLEY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Robert D. Cook, Kingston, for appellant.
Michael Kavanagh (Michael Kirk, of counsel), Kingston, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and KANE, MAIN, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Vogt, J.), rendered April 5, 1984, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.
On January 10, 1979, defendant was sentenced to five years' probation on a conviction for burglary in the third degree. On December 17, 1983, approximately three weeks prior to the expiration of the probation term, defendant was placed under arrest on the basis of marihuana possession and two incidents in November 1983 in which he allegedly sold a controlled substance (codeine pills) to an undercover police informant. In February 1984, defendant entered a plea of guilty in Kingston City Court to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree in full satisfaction of the pending charges and received a 90-day suspended sentence. In the meantime, a petition for violation of probation was filed premised on the above incidents. On March 5, 1984, defendant entered a plea of guilty to the probation violation and, one month later, was sentenced to a definite term of imprisonment of nine months, in accord with the negotiated plea agreement.
On this appeal, defendant maintains that the sentence was unduly harsh and that he failed to receive the effective assistance of counsel. This latter contention is premised on the assertion that defendant's attorney in the Kingston City Court matter failed to apprise him of the consequences of his guilty plea on the pending probation sentence. Beyond the fact that this argument is grounded on matters dehors the record, it simply represents a collateral challenge to a separate conviction, not the matter before us. With respect to the sentence, the record indicates that defendant served eight months' imprisonment prior to being released on his own recognizance pending this appeal. In the meantime, defendant represents that he has married, fathered a child and obtained full-time employment. In effect, defendant requests this court to modify the sentence to time served, i.e., eight months.
There is little question that defendant received the benefit of his...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Bedell
...resentencing (see, People v. Hiemel, supra; People v. Andrea FF., supra ); or while a direct appeal was pending (see, People v. Bagley, 128 A.D.2d 980, 513 N.Y.S.2d 291; People v. Chen, supra ). The discretion exercised by appellate courts in those cases was delegated to them by the Legisla......
-
People v. Gretzinger
...at 687–688, 732 N.Y.S.2d 727 ; 82 N.Y.S.3d 257 People v. Riservato, 155 A.D.2d 793, 793, 548 N.Y.S.2d 1007 [1989] ; People v. Bagley, 128 A.D.2d 980, 981, 513 N.Y.S.2d 291 [1987] ; People v. Lustgarten, 118 A.D.2d 1033, 1034–1035, 500 N.Y.S.2d 407 [1986] ).ORDERED that the judgment is modif......
-
People v. Todd GG
...the judgment by reducing the sentence to time served (see, People v. Andrea FF., 185 A.D.2d 557, 586 N.Y.S.2d 423; People v. Bagley, 128 A.D.2d 980, 513 N.Y.S.2d 291). ORDERED that the judgment is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to ti......