Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

The People of the State of New York v. Judd A. Farewell

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department


December 23, 2011

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK,
RESPONDENT,
v.
JUDD A. FAREWELL, JR.,
DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 1.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered December 7, 2009.

People v Farewell

Decided on December 23, 2011

Appellate Division, Fourth Department

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., CARNI, LINDLEY, SCONIERS, AND GREEN, JJ.

The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: In appeal No. 1, defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]) and, in appeal No. 2, he appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (§ 140.20). Defendant's contention in each appeal that County Court abused its discretion in denying his request for youthful offender status is encompassed by his valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Elshabazz, 81 AD3d 1429, lv denied 16 NY3d 858; People v Capps, 63 AD3d 1632, lv denied 13 NY3d 795). Defendant's challenge to the severity of the sentence in each appeal is also encompassed by that valid waiver (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256; People v VanDeViver, 56 AD3d 1118, 1119, lv denied 11 NY3d 931, 12 NY3d 788).

Defendant further contends in each appeal that the court should have conducted a hearing before ordering him to pay restitution. Inasmuch as defendant expressly waived his right to a hearing and agreed to the amount of restitution at sentencing, that contention is without merit (see People v McElrath, 241 AD2d 932).

Entered: December 23, 2011

Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

20111223

© 1992-2011 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.