People v. Kinslow
| Decision Date | 11 March 1985 |
| Citation | 486 N.Y.S.2d 317,109 A.D.2d 803 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Dennis KINSLOW, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Dennis Kinslow, pro se.
Dominic J. Sichenzia, Garden City, for appellant.
John J. Santucci, Dist. Atty., Kew Gardens (John Castellano, Kew Gardens, of counsel), for respondent.
Before O'CONNOR, J.P., and RUBIN, LAWRENCE and EIBER, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered March 25, 1983, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
Judgment affirmed.
Upon a review of the record we find that defendant's plea of guilty was knowingly and intelligently made (see People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 18-19, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170; People v. Modica, 100 A.D.2d 559, 473 N.Y.S.2d 265, modified on other grounds 64 N.Y.2d 828, 486 N.Y.S.2d 931, 476 N.E.2d 330 [1985] ) and that it was not the product of coercion (People v. Lowrance, 41 N.Y.2d 303, 392 N.Y.S.2d 417, 360 N.E.2d 1099; People v. Modica, supra ). It is clear that defendant, a second felony offender, is criminally experienced and "knowing and knowledgeable in the ways of the criminal law" (People v. Pearson, 55 A.D.2d 685, 686, 390 N.Y.S.2d 430; see also People v. Nixon, 21 N.Y.2d 338, 353, 287 N.Y.S.2d 659, 234 N.E.2d 687, cert. denied sub nom. Robinson v. New York, 393 U.S. 1067, 89 S.Ct. 721, 21 L.Ed.2d 709).
Moreover, there is no merit to defendant's challenge to the constitutionality of Penal Law § 70.06, the second felony offender statute. This court has repeatedly stated that the mandatory sentencing scheme under that statute does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (see People v. Vasquez, 104 A.D.2d 1012, 480 N.Y.S.2d 918; People v. Cates, 104 A.D.2d 895, 480 N.Y.S.2d 512; People v. Bryant, 47 A.D.2d 51, 365 N.Y.S.2d 223).
Finally, we have reviewed defendant's other contentions, and find them to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial
- People v. Hyman
-
People v. Valderrama
...488 N.Y.S.2d 454). Moreover, his apparent constitutional challenge to the sentencing statute is without merit ( see, People v. Kinslow, 109 A.D.2d 803, 486 N.Y.S.2d 317; People v. Vasquez, 104 A.D.2d 1012, 480 N.Y.S.2d 918). The defendant's remaining contentions regarding the court's inquir......