People v Dozier

Annotate this Case
People v Dozier 2012 NY Slip Op 03854 Decided on May 15, 2012 Appellate Division, Second Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law ยง 431. This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Decided on May 15, 2012
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
PLUMMER E. LOTT
ROBERT J. MILLER, JJ.
2011-05714
2011-05715
(Ind. No. 10-0738; S.C.I. No. 11-190S)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Gary L. Dozier, appellant.




Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.
Janet DiFiore, District Attorney, White Plains, N.Y. (Steven
A. Bender and Richard Longworth
Hecht of counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeals by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Hubert, J.), rendered April 21, 2011, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree under Indictment No. 10-0738, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence, and (2) a judgment of the same court, also rendered April 21, 2011, convicting him of obstructing governmental administration in the second degree under Superior Court Information No. 11-190S, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant's contention that his pleas of guilty were not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his pleas on this ground prior to sentencing (see CPL 220.60[3], 470.05[2]; People v Cullum, 93AD3d 856). In any event, the defendant's contention is without merit.

The defendant's contention that the sentencing court erred in denying his application for a "violent felony override" is without merit (see generally People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417; People v Cumberbatch, 24 Misc 3d 412).
FLORIO, J.P., BALKIN, LOTT and MILLER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

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.