People v Key

Annotate this Case
People v Key 2011 NY Slip Op 08956 Decided on December 6, 2011 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 December 6, 2011
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORKAPPELLATE DIVISION : SECOND JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
ANITA R. FLORIO, J.P.
RUTH C. BALKIN
ARIEL E. BELEN
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.
2010-06610
(Ind. No. 1755/02)

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

v

Olsen Key, appellant.




Michael A. Fiechter, Bellmore, N.Y., for appellant.
Kathleen M. Rice, District Attorney, Mineola, N.Y. (Robert A.
Schwartz and Sarah S. Rabinowitz of
counsel), for respondent.


DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Donnino, J.), rendered June 30, 2010, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, assault in the first degree (two counts), and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's claims pertaining to the grand jury presentation were forfeited by his plea of guilty (see People v Crumpler, 70 AD3d 1396, 1397; People v Martin, 55 AD3d 1236, 1238; People v Greeman, 49 AD3d 463, 464; People v Winchester, 38 AD3d 1336, 1337; People v Santiago, 305 AD2d 1109, 1110; People v Sachs, 280 AD2d 966, 967; People v Butler, 198 AD2d 427; People v Quackenbush, 98 AD2d 875). Furthermore, the County Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant's motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see CPL 220.60[3]; People v Meyers, 204 AD2d 492).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816).

The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
FLORIO, J.P., BALKIN, BELEN and CHAMBERS, 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.