# BROWN, DANA, PEOPLE v

> Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · November 9, 2012

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4085631

## Case

- **Court:** Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
- **Decided:** November 9, 2012
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4085631

## Opinion text

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1201
KA 09-02240
PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, CARNI, VALENTINO, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

DANA BROWN, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

JEANNIE MICHALSKI, CONFLICT DEFENDER, GENESEO, FOR DEFENDANT-
APPELLANT.

GREGORY J. MCCAFFREY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, GENESEO (JOSHUA J. TONRA OF
COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Livingston County Court (Dennis S.
Cohen, J.), rendered November 6, 2008. The judgment convicted
defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth
degree, attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree and endangering
the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
upon his plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal
Law § 155.30 [1]), attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree (§§
110.00, 155.30 [1]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10
[1]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that
he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal
(see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). That valid waiver
encompasses his further contention that County Court erred in refusing
to suppress his statement to the police (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d
831, 833). We note, however, that the certificate of conviction
incorrectly reflects that defendant was sentenced under the second
count of the indictment to a term of incarceration of two years for
attempted grand larceny in the fourth degree. The certificate of
conviction must therefore be amended to reflect that he was sentenced
to a definite term of incarceration of one year under that count (see
People v Saxton, 32 AD3d 1286, 1286-1287).

Entered: November 9, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell
Clerk of the Court

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4085631. Public record. Not legal advice.