People v. Arnold

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Arnold

141 A.D.2d 401, 529 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6876

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

DecidedJune 21, 1988

StatusPublished

This text of 141 A.D.2d 401 (People v. Arnold) 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. Arnold, 141 A.D.2d 401, 529 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6876 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered May 27, 1986, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of first degree robbery, and sentencing him to a term of 23 years to life in prison as a persistent felony offender, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion and in the interest of justice, to reduce the term of his sentence to 15 years to life, and as so modified, affirmed.

Upon an examination of the entire record and our review of defendant’s previous convictions, we find the sentence imposed to be excessive to the extent indicated. The two other points raised by defendant are without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kassal, Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered May 27, 1986, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of first degree robbery, and sentencing him to a term of 23 years to life in prison as a persistent felony offender, unanimously modified, in the exercise of discretion and in the interest of justice, to reduce the term of his sentence to 15 years to life, and as so modified, affirmed.

Upon an examination of the entire record and our review of defendant’s previous convictions, we find the sentence imposed to be excessive to the extent indicated. The two other points raised by defendant are without merit. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Kassal, Rosenberger, Wallach and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.2d 401, 529 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6876, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arnold-nyappdiv-1988.