People v. Pagan
810 N.Y.S.2d 370
N.Y. App. Div.
2006
Check Treatment

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v ANDREW PAGAN, Appellant.

Superior Court Information No. 01-0050, 01-0134, 01-0194

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

April 25, 2006

810 N.Y.S.2d 370

Miller, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ.

Appeals by the defendant from (1) an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered March 25, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, under Superior Court information No. 01-0050, (2) an amended judgment of the same court also rendered March 25, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for burglary in the second degree, under Superior Court information No. 01-0134, and (3) an amended judgment of the same court also rendered March 25, 2003, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he violated certain conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for escape in the second degree, under Superior Court information No. 01-0194.

Ordered that the amended judgments are affirmed.

The defendant never filed a notice of appeal from a judgment of conviction rendered May 15, 2001, upon his plea of guilty under Orange County Superior Court information No. 01-0050 to criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree. Accordingly, his claim that the County Court erred in failing to treat him as a youthful offender is not properly before this Court (see

).

The defendant‘s waivers of his right to appeal preclude review of his claim that the sentences imposed were excessive (see

;
).

The defendant‘s remaining contentions are also not properly before the Court based upon his failure to appeal from the original judgments of conviction (see

). Miller, J.P., Mastro, Fisher and Lunn, JJ., concur.