People v Valcourt (Jose)

Annotate this Case
[*1] People v Valcourt (Jose) 2009 NY Slip Op 51641(U) [24 Misc 3d 140(A)] Decided on July 29, 2009 Appellate Term, First Department Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. This opinion is uncorrected and will not be published in the printed Official Reports.

Decided on July 29, 2009
APPELLATE TERM OF THE SUPREME COURT, FIRST DEPARTMENT
PRESENT: McKeon, P.J., Heitler, J
570498/06.

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jose Valcourt, Defendant-Appellant.

Defendant appeals from eight judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (Ellen M. Coin, J. at plea; Patricia M. Nunez, J. at sentencing), each rendered June 27, 2006, convicting him, upon his pleas of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree (2 counts), resisting arrest, and violation of Tax Law § 1814(a)(1)(six counts), and imposing sentence.


Per Curiam.

Judgments of conviction (Ellen M. Coin, J. at plea; Patricia M. Nunez, J. at sentencing), each rendered June 27, 2006, affirmed.

Defendant's claim that the court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence is unpreserved, since he failed to move to withdraw his plea or object to the court's consideration of his post-plea arrest in enhancing the sentence, and we decline to review this claim in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we find no basis for reversal where dismissal of the informations — the only relief sought by defendant on appeal — is unwarranted.

We have considered and rejected defendant's challenge to the facial sufficiency of the informations charging violations of Tax Law § 1814(a)(1) (see People v Fofana, 15 Misc 3d 136[A], 2007 NY Slip Op50807[U] [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 865 [2007], reconsideration denied 9 NY3d 875 [2007]) and resisting arrest (see generally Matter of Davaun M., 44 AD3d 420 [2007]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.
I concur
Decision Date: July 29, 2009

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.