People v. Anderson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Anderson

211 A.D.2d 684, 622 N.Y.S.2d 462

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJanuary 17, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 211 A.D.2d 684 (People v. Anderson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Anderson, 211 A.D.2d 684, 622 N.Y.S.2d 462 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered September 3, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The minutes of the plea proceeding demonstrate that the County Court properly conducted an inquiry to ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary, that the defendant possessed the necessary criminal intent, and that there was no possibility of an intoxication defense (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662).

Given the defendant’s criminal history and the heinous nature of this crime, we find that the sentence that was imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Paño Z. Patsalos, J.), rendered September 3, 1992, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The minutes of the plea proceeding demonstrate that the County Court properly conducted an inquiry to ensure that the defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary, that the defendant possessed the necessary criminal intent, and that there was no possibility of an intoxication defense (see, People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662).

Given the defendant’s criminal history and the heinous nature of this crime, we find that the sentence that was imposed is not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Bracken, J. P., Balletta, Ritter, Pizzuto and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

211 A.D.2d 684, 622 N.Y.S.2d 462, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anderson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack