People v. Ashley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ashley

278 A.D.2d 594, 718 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13115

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 14, 2000·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered August 2, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Following the withdrawal of his initial plea, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in the second degree and was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to concurrent terms of imprisonment of five years.

We would reject defendant’s contention that the agreed-upon sentence should be reduced in the interest of justice. Notwithstanding defendant’s laudable military service and his challenge to the information contained in the presentence investigation report, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence imposed (see, People v Jenkins, 256 AD2d 735, 737, lv denied 93 NY2d 854; People v Moneyhan, 248 AD2d 756, 757, lv denied 91 NY2d 1010).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Rose, 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 St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered August 2, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of two counts of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Following the withdrawal of his initial plea, defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery in the second degree and was sentenced in accordance with the negotiated plea agreement to concurrent terms of imprisonment of five years.

We would reject defendant’s contention that the agreed-upon sentence should be reduced in the interest of justice. Notwithstanding defendant’s laudable military service and his challenge to the information contained in the presentence investigation report, we find no extraordinary circumstances nor abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence imposed (see, People v Jenkins, 256 AD2d 735, 737, lv denied 93 NY2d 854; People v Moneyhan, 248 AD2d 756, 757, lv denied 91 NY2d 1010).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

People v. Ashley, 278 A.D.2d 594, 718 N.Y.S.2d 232, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13115 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

278 A.D.2d 594 (People v. Ashley) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related