People v. Emma, 101 A.D.3d 1146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Emma, 101 A.D.3d 1146 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (13 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Whitlock (nyappdiv, 2014-02-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Whitlock
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal, the validity of which he does not challenge on appeal, precludes review of his claim that the sentence imposed, upon his admission that he violated conditions of his probation, was excessive (see People v Emma, 101 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]; People v Daly, 80 AD3d 776 [2011]; People v Gorovoy, 309 AD2d 764 [2003]; People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489, 490 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Whitlock
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
The defendant’s waiver of his right to appeal, the validity of which he does not challenge on appeal, precludes review of his claim that the sentence imposed, upon his admission that he violated conditions of his probation, was excessive (see People v Emma, 101 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]; People v Daly, 80 AD3d 776 [2011]; People v Gorovoy, 309 AD2d 764 [2003]; People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489, 490 [2000]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McMillan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to afford him a second chance to attend the substance-abuse treatment program after he violated the plea agreement and in imposing the enhanced sentence (see People v Rodriguez, 46 AD3d 356 [2007]; People v Wilson, 11 AD3d 206, 207 [2004]; People v Floyd, 306 AD2d 496 [2003]; see also People v Gary, 106 AD3d 932 [2013]; People v Emma, 101 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. McMillan
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in declining to afford him a second chance to attend the substance-abuse treatment program after he violated the plea agreement and in imposing the enhanced sentence (see People v Rodriguez, 46 AD3d 356 [2007]; People v Wilson, 11 AD3d 206, 207 [2004]; People v Floyd, 306 AD2d 496 [2003]; see also People v Gary, 106 AD3d 932 [2013]; People v Emma, 101 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Vargas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion or violate the defendant’s due process rights in determining that the defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement and in sentencing him accordingly (see People v Gary, 106 AD3d 932, 932 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]; see also People v Emma, 101 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Vargas
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion or violate the defendant’s due process rights in determining that the defendant violated the terms of the plea agreement and in sentencing him accordingly (see People v Gary, 106 AD3d 932, 932 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1042 [2013]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]; see also People v Emma, 101 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Gary
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Although the defendant contends on appeal that the sentencing court abused its discretion, and violated his due process rights, by imposing the enhanced sentence, his claim, properly viewed, amounts to a request that we substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]; see also People v Emma, 101 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Gary
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see also · confidence medium
Although the defendant contends on appeal that the sentencing court abused its discretion, and violated his due process rights, by imposing the enhanced sentence, his claim, properly viewed, amounts to a request that we substitute our discretion for that of the sentencing court (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]; see also People v Emma, 101 AD3d 1146, 1147 [2012]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Salvatore Emma
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 26, 2012.
101 A.D.3d 1146
Cited by 11 opinions  |  Published

[*1147] The defendant pleaded guilty in exchange for the Supreme Court’s conditional promise that it would impose the agreed-upon sentence. The court, however, carefully explained to the defendant the consequences if he were to violate the plea conditions. The defendant nonetheless violated a condition of the plea agreement, as the court found after conducting a hearing, and the court imposed an enhanced sentence. Although the defendant contends on appeal that the court abused its discretion by imposing an enhanced sentence, his claim, properly viewed, amounts to a request that we substitute our discretion for that of the court (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 86 [1982]). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses a claim that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence (see People v Miles, 268 AD2d 489, 490 [2000]). Skelos, J.P., Balkin, Chambers and Miller, JJ., concur.