People v. Baker

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baker

263 A.D.2d 771, 695 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8312

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 771 (People v. Baker) 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. Baker, 263 A.D.2d 771, 695 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8312 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County (Avery, Jr., J.), rendered December 1, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated.

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to a term of IV3 to 4 years in prison on the unlicensed operation count and a definite term of one year in prison on the driving while intoxicated count, both sentences to be served concurrently. Defendant now argues that this sentence was harsh and excessive because, inter alia, a more lenient sentence had been discussed prior to his fleeing the jurisdiction while released on his own recognizance pending sentencing. We disagree. A sentence within permissible statutory ranges will not be disturbed unless extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 NY2d 872). Here, given defendant’s prior criminal history and the circumstances [772]*772described in the record, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed in the interest of justice (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Graffeo, 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 Cortland County (Avery, Jr., J.), rendered December 1, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated.

Defendant pleaded guilty to aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated and was sentenced to a term of IV3 to 4 years in prison on the unlicensed operation count and a definite term of one year in prison on the driving while intoxicated count, both sentences to be served concurrently. Defendant now argues that this sentence was harsh and excessive because, inter alia, a more lenient sentence had been discussed prior to his fleeing the jurisdiction while released on his own recognizance pending sentencing. We disagree. A sentence within permissible statutory ranges will not be disturbed unless extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 NY2d 872). Here, given defendant’s prior criminal history and the circumstances [772]*772described in the record, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed in the interest of justice (see, id.).

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 771, 695 N.Y.S.2d 160, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8312, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baker-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack