People v. Saxbury
| Decision Date | 02 June 1983 |
| Citation | 95 A.D.2d 871,464 N.Y.S.2d 43 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Roger SAXBURY, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
William Gray, Elmira, for appellant.
James T. Hayden, Acting Chemung County Dist. Atty., Elmira, for respondent.
Before MAIN, J.P., and MIKOLL, YESAWICH, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered October 9, 1981, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of stolen property in the first degree.
Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, defendant, admittedly a predicate felon, pleaded guilty to the crime for which he was indicted upon the consideration that he would receive the reduced sentence of two to four years' imprisonment. On this appeal, defendant challenges the constitutionality of section 70.06 of the Penal Law arguing that its mandatory sentence requirement denies equal protection under both the United States and New York State constitutions, and further, deprives the judiciary of the exercise of discretion in the imposition of sentences. The arguments are without merit since the constitutionality of the second felony offender statute has long been upheld (People v. Parker, 41 N.Y.2d 21, 25, 390 N.Y.S.2d 837, 359 N.E.2d 348; People v. Pacheo, 73 A.D.2d 370, 426 N.Y.S.2d 57; People v. Brown, 54 A.D.2d 585, 387 N.Y.S.2d 158).
Defendant's remaining argument attacks the legality of the warrantless search and seizure of his apartment, a claim raised in his motion for a suppression hearing. However, upon his scheduled appearance before the court on September 18, 1981 for the specific purpose of suppression, Wade and Huntley hearings, defendant's counsel stated in open court that because of plea negotiations, his client was prepared to plead guilty to the indictment. The court thereupon inquired if defendant understood that by pleading he would waive his right to any pretrial hearings and to a jury trial, to which defendant responded affirmatively. It is clear that a defendant may waive his right to pretrial hearings upon his plea of guilty so long as he clearly understands and specifically does so (People v. Esajerre, 35 N.Y.2d 463, 363 N.Y.S.2d 931, 323 N.E.2d 175; People v. Williams, 73 A.D.2d 1019, 1020, 424 N.Y.S.2d 757).
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Jandrew
...People v. Santana, 99 A.D.2d 586, 471 N.Y.S.2d 414, supra; People v. DiOrio 99 A.D.2d 593, 471 N.Y.S.2d 701, supra; People v. Saxbury, 95 A.D.2d 871, 872, 464 N.Y.S.2d 43). ...
-
People v. Kelsch
...defendant waived his right to a suppression hearing, obviating the need for counsel to pursue the matter (see People v. Saxbury, 95 A.D.2d 871, 464 N.Y.S.2d 43 [1983] ). Further, a review of the record--which shows that defendant was arrested in close proximity in time and place to the scen......
-
People v. Peale
...Law § 70.06 to be without merit, as we have in the past (see, People v. Davis, 111 A.D.2d 945, 946, 489 N.Y.S.2d 936; People v. Saxbury, 95 A.D.2d 871, 872, 464 N.Y.S.2d 43). With regard to the sentence imposed by County Court, we find that such sentence was unauthorized as a matter of law.......
-
People v. Davis
...App.Div., 485 N.Y.S.2d 861 ). Further, there is no constitutional infirmity to the second felony offender statute (People v. Saxbury, 95 A.D.2d 871, 872, 464 N.Y.S.2d 43). Judgment KANE, CASEY, WEISS and LEVINE, JJ., concur. ...