People v Washington

Annotate this Case
People v Washington 2014 NY Slip Op 06740 Decided on October 3, 2014 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 October 3, 2014 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., FAHEY, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ.
1006 KA 12-02051

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

v

CHERISE C. WASHINGTON, ALSO KNOWN AS CHERICE MORRIS, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Ontario County Court (Craig J. Doran, J.), rendered September 24, 2012. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree and petit larceny.



LEANNE LAPP, PUBLIC DEFENDER, CANANDAIGUA (MICHAEL A. JONES, JR., OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

R. MICHAEL TANTILLO, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, CANANDAIGUA (JAMES B. RITTS OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of burglary in the third degree (Penal Law § 140.20) and petit larceny (§ 155.25). Defendant contends that the delay following her initially scheduled sentencing date divested County Court of jurisdiction (see CPL 380.30 [1]; People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359, 366-367). Defendant failed to preserve her contention for our review inasmuch as she did not move to dismiss the indictment on that ground or otherwise object to the delay (see People v Dissottle, 68 AD3d 1542, 1543, lv denied 14 NY3d 799; see also People v Diggs, 98 AD3d 1255, 1256, lv denied 20 NY3d 986), and we decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [3] [c]).

Entered: October 3, 2014

Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court



Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.