Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Robert STANLEY, Defendant–Appellant.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Kenneth F. Case, J.), rendered June 15, 2016. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the third degree (two counts).
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 two counts of attempted robbery in the third degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 160.05), for which he was sentenced as a second felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years. Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in finding that he is a second felony offender based on a prior conviction of attempted reckless endangerment in the first degree, which is a legally impossible crime, because he did not challenge the predicate felony statement filed by the People pursuant to CPL 400.21 and did not object to the court's determination (see People v. Smith, 73 N.Y.2d 961, 962–963, 540 N.Y.S.2d 987, 538 N.E.2d 339 [1989]; People v. Williams, 118 A.D.3d 1429, 1430, 988 N.Y.S.2d 771 [4th Dept. 2014], lv denied 24 N.Y.3d 1222, 4 N.Y.S.3d 610, 28 N.E.3d 46 [2015] ). In any event, defendant's contention lacks merit. It is well settled that a defendant may plead guilty to a legally impossible crime (see People v. Foster, 19 N.Y.2d 150, 153–154, 278 N.Y.S.2d 603, 225 N.E.2d 200 [1967]; People v. Cordoba, 80 A.D.3d 461, 462, 915 N.Y.S.2d 527 [1st Dept. 2011], lv denied 16 N.Y.3d 857, 923 N.Y.S.2d 419, 947 N.E.2d 1198 [2011] ), and there is no authority for defendant's claim that a legally impossible crime cannot be the prior felony for predicate sentencing purposes.
Finally, even assuming, arguendo, that defendant's waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence, we perceive no basis in the record upon which to modify the sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15[6][b] ).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: 730
Decided: June 08, 2018
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)