People v. Luckerson
Decision Date | 21 January 2016 |
Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Delaisia LUCKERSON, also known Delaisia Hasbrouck, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
135 A.D.3d 1186
25 N.Y.S.3d 382
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Delaisia LUCKERSON, also known Delaisia Hasbrouck, Appellant.
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Jan. 21, 2016.
Theodore J. Stein, Woodstock, for appellant.
D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, EGAN JR., ROSE and DEVINE, JJ.
GARRY, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered March 13, 2014, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimes of grand larceny in the third degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.
In 2013, defendant was charged in an indictment with two counts of grand larceny in the third degree related to her receipt of unemployment benefits to which she was not entitled. Subsequently, a second indictment stemming from a separate incident charged her with three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and three counts of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. In full satisfaction of both indictments, defendant plead guilty to one count of grand larceny in the third degree and one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived her right to appeal. She was then sentenced to concurrent prison terms
of 1 to 3 years on the grand larceny count and three years on the criminal sale of a controlled substance count, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS). Defendant appeals.
Initially, defendant failed to preserve her argument that she was not arraigned on the charges of grand larceny in the third degree, in violation of CPL 180.10 (see People v. Hallenbeck, 81 A.D.3d 1077, 1078, 916 N.Y.S.2d 662 [2011] ). To...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Rodriguez
...such contentions amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel, we disagree. Although the jury could have possibly inferred from the 135 A.D.3d 1186evidence that defendant had spent the evening before the murder working as a pimp, defendant has not shown the absence of strategy of counsel's......
-
People v. Schmiege
...N.Y.S.3d 905 [3d Dept. 2018], lv denied 32 N.Y.3d 1206, 99 N.Y.S.3d 206, 122 N.E.3d 1119 [2019] ; see also People v. Luckerson, 135 A.D.3d 1186, 1187, 25 N.Y.S.3d 382 [3d Dept. 2016] ). We note, however, that the uniform sentence and commitment form incorrectly indicates that the court awar......
-
People v. Burks
...1056, 1057, 849 N.Y.S.2d 826 [2008], lv denied 10 N.Y.3d 934, 862 N.Y.S.2d 341, 892 N.E.2d 407 [2008] ; see also People v. Luckerson, 135 A.D.3d 1186, 1187, 25 N.Y.S.3d 382 [2016] ).ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Aarons and Pritzker, JJ., concur.--------Notes:1......
-
People v. Tiul-Putul
...of his arraignment is unpreserved for our review as he failed to raise this issue before County Court (see People v. Luckerson, 135 A.D.3d 1186, 1187, 25 N.Y.S.3d 382 [3d Dept. 2016] ; People v. Hallenbeck, 81 A.D.3d 1077, 1078, 916 N.Y.S.2d 662 [3d Dept. 2011] ). To the extent that his cla......