From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Joy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 13, 2014
114 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)

Opinion

2014-02-13

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mark A. JOY, Jr., appellant.

Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.


Carol Kahn, New York, N.Y., for appellant. William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, N.Y. (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Forman, J.), rendered January 24, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's challenges to the County Court's failure to hold a restitution hearing, the amount of restitution he was ordered to make as to two rings and a television that were stolen, and the record support for requiring him to make restitution for guns and ammunition that allegedly were stolen but not referenced in the superseding indictment, are unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v. Horne, 97 N.Y.2d 404, 414 n. 3, 740 N.Y.S.2d 675, 767 N.E.2d 132;People v. Lessner, 100 A.D.3d 929, 953 N.Y.S.2d 884;People v. Isaacs, 71 A.D.3d 1161, 898 N.Y.S.2d 226), and we decline to review these issues pursuant to our interest of justice jurisdiction. BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, LOTT and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Joy

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Feb 13, 2014
114 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
Case details for

People v. Joy

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Mark A. JOY, Jr., appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Feb 13, 2014

Citations

114 A.D.3d 809 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)
2014 N.Y. Slip Op. 1020
980 N.Y.S.2d 270

Citing Cases

People v. Williams

rd fails to demonstrate that the defendant was made aware of the meaning of the right to appeal ( see People…