Narrative Opinion Summary
The Wayne County Court issued a judgment on January 31, 2013, convicting the defendant of attempted criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree following a guilty plea. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The defendant argued that the County Court improperly enhanced his sentence without allowing him to withdraw his plea, citing precedent from *People v. Selikoff*. However, the appellate court noted that the defendant failed to preserve this argument for review because he did not object to the enhanced sentence, nor did he move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment on those grounds, as established in *People v. Epps* and *People v. Gerald*. The court chose not to review the matter out of discretion and found the imposed sentence to be appropriate and not excessively harsh or severe. The decision was supported by Justices Scudder, Fahey, Carni, Valentino, and Whalen.
Legal Issues Addressed
Appropriateness of Sentencesubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court found that the sentence imposed on the defendant was appropriate and not excessively harsh, thus affirming the lower court's decision.
Reasoning: The court chose not to review the matter out of discretion and found the imposed sentence to be appropriate and not excessively harsh or severe.
Discretionary Review by Appellate Courtsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The appellate court exercised its discretion not to review the unpreserved claim regarding sentence enhancement.
Reasoning: The court chose not to review the matter out of discretion and found the imposed sentence to be appropriate and not excessively harsh or severe.
Preservation of Argument for Appealsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The defendant's argument regarding the enhancement of his sentence was not preserved for appellate review because he did not object or move to withdraw his plea at the trial level.
Reasoning: The appellate court noted that the defendant failed to preserve this argument for review because he did not object to the enhanced sentence, nor did he move to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment on those grounds, as established in *People v. Epps* and *People v. Gerald*.