People v John Armstrong
Annotate this Case
People v Armstrong
2003 NY Slip Op 18752 [1 AD3d 1064]
Decided on November 21, 2003
Appellate Division, Fourth 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 November 21, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
1408 KA 01-02504
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
JOHN ARMSTRONG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Affronti, J.), entered October 18, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree.
EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (SHIRLEY A. GORMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MARTHA B. COLBURN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: November 21, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
Clerk of the Court
Decided on November 21, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: PINE, J.P., WISNER, HURLBUTT, GORSKI, AND LAWTON, JJ.
1408 KA 01-02504
[*1]PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, ORDER
v
JOHN ARMSTRONG, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
Appeal from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Affronti, J.), entered October 18, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree.
EDWARD J. NOWAK, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (SHIRLEY A. GORMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
HOWARD R. RELIN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (MARTHA B. COLBURN OF COUNSEL), FOR PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.
Entered: November 21, 2003JoAnn M. Wahl
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.
