People v. Weakfall

People v Weakfall (2017 NY Slip Op 05391)

People v Weakfall

2017 NY Slip Op 05391

Decided on June 30, 2017

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.

Decided on June 30, 2017 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PERADOTTO, J.P., CARNI, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

929 KA 15-00237

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

ALEXANDER WEAKFALL, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE GLENNON LAW FIRM, P.C., ROCHESTER (PETER J. GLENNON OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (LEAH R. MERVINE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), rendered August 7, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal mischief in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal mischief in the second degree (Penal Law § 145.10). Defendant forfeited his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence by pleading guilty (see People v Feidner, 109 AD3d 1086, 1086). Indeed, "it would be logically inconsistent to permit a defendant to enter a plea of guilty based on particular admitted facts, yet to allow that defendant contemporaneously to reserve the right to challenge on appeal the sufficiency of those facts to support a conviction, had there been a trial" (People v Plunkett, 19 NY3d 400, 405-406). Furthermore, the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 30, 2017

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court