People v. Hendrickson
| Decision Date | 16 May 1996 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James W. HENDRICKSON, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Teresa Mulliken, Delhi, for appellant.
Paul Eaton Jr., District Attorney, Sidney, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, YESAWICH, PETERS and SPAIN, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Delaware County (Estes, J.), rendered March 13, 1995, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of manslaughter in the first degree and attempted murder in the second degree.
On December 23, 1993, defendant, following an argument, retrieved a loaded rifle from his mother's bedroom and proceeded to shoot and kill his mother's best friend. Defendant then turned the gun on his mother, but the weapon failed to discharge. Defendant severely beat his mother with the butt of the weapon and then fled the scene. As a result of these actions, defendant was charged in a multicount indictment that included counts of murder in the second degree and attempted murder in the second degree. Ultimately, defendant pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the first degree and attempted murder in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. As part of the plea agreement defendant also waived his right to appeal from his conviction and sentence; he was thereafter sentenced to two consecutive 8 1/3 to 25-year terms in prison. Defendant was also ordered to pay restitution to the New York State Crime Victims Board, who had paid his mother's medical bills, in the total amount of $21,554.14. This appeal by defendant followed.
On appeal, defendant argues that his waiver of the right to appeal was not voluntarily made and also that County Court abused its discretion or acted improperly by imposing consecutive sentences and ordering restitution. Initially, we agree with the People that defendant's waiver of his right to appeal following an extensive and thorough colloquy was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently made (see, People v. Scott, 222 A.D.2d 958, 636 N.Y.S.2d 432).
Nevertheless, were we to consider the merits, we would find that defendant's sentence was neither harsh nor excessive and the order of restitution was appropriate. With respect to the propriety of defendant's term of imprisonment, which he was informed could involve consecutive sentences, we note that while the circumstances of defendant's troubled life might well...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thompson
...229 A.D.2d 768, 769, 646 N.Y.S.2d 574, 575-576; People v. Catalfamo, 228 A.D.2d 786, 787-788, 643 N.Y.S.2d 750, 751; People v. Hendrickson, 227 A.D.2d 801, 642 N.Y.S.2d 442; cf., People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 283, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108). The record reveals that defendant sign......
- Young v. Coombe
-
People v. Upson
...may aid in understanding her reasons for committing the instant offense but do not excuse her conduct (see, People v. Hendrickson, 227 A.D.2d 801, 802, 642 N.Y.S.2d 442). Given defendant's lengthy criminal history, including two prior forgery convictions, we do not find the sentence imposed......
-
People v. Phillips
...amount of restitution was improper to be unpersuasive (see, People v. Ormsby, 242 A.D.2d 840, 662 N.Y.S.2d 619; People v. Hendrickson, 227 A.D.2d 801, 802, 642 N.Y.S.2d 442; People v. Masten, 215 A.D.2d 892, 893, 626 N.Y.S.2d 890, lv. denied 86 N.Y.2d 782, 631 N.Y.S.2d 628, 655 N.E.2d 725).......