People v. Andrew Z.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Andrew Z.

247 A.D.2d 764, 669 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1880

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 247 A.D.2d 764 (People v. Andrew Z.) 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. Andrew Z., 247 A.D.2d 764, 669 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1880 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, j.), rendered April 14, 1995, which sentenced defendant upon his adjudication as a youthful offender.

Defendant, then 16 years old, pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the second degree in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment charging him with various crimes in connection with a number of burglaries committed in the City of Elmira, Chemung County. County Court adjudicated defendant a youthful offender and sentenced him to a prison term of 1 to 3 years, a sentence which he now contends was harsh and excessive. We disagree. There is nothing in the record to suggest that County Court failed to consider all of the relevant factors presented to it in imposing sentence. Contrary to defendant’s contention, his lack of criminal history was considered by County Court as evidenced by the court’s deci[765]*765sion to grant him youthful offender status (see, People v John W., 224 AD2d 856, lv denied 88 NY2d 967). In view of the foregoing and the fact that defendant was sentenced to a prison term which was not the harshest possible, we conclude that the sentence was appropriate and will not disturb it (see, People v Jeffrey L., 207 AD2d 938; People v James E., 206 AD2d 570).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, j.), rendered April 14, 1995, which sentenced defendant upon his adjudication as a youthful offender.

Defendant, then 16 years old, pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the second degree in full satisfaction of a four-count indictment charging him with various crimes in connection with a number of burglaries committed in the City of Elmira, Chemung County. County Court adjudicated defendant a youthful offender and sentenced him to a prison term of 1 to 3 years, a sentence which he now contends was harsh and excessive. We disagree. There is nothing in the record to suggest that County Court failed to consider all of the relevant factors presented to it in imposing sentence. Contrary to defendant’s contention, his lack of criminal history was considered by County Court as evidenced by the court’s deci[765]*765sion to grant him youthful offender status (see, People v John W., 224 AD2d 856, lv denied 88 NY2d 967). In view of the foregoing and the fact that defendant was sentenced to a prison term which was not the harshest possible, we conclude that the sentence was appropriate and will not disturb it (see, People v Jeffrey L., 207 AD2d 938; People v James E., 206 AD2d 570).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

247 A.D.2d 764, 669 N.Y.S.2d 253, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1880, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-andrew-z-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack