People v. Ball

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ball

126 A.D.2d 655, 511 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41783

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 126 A.D.2d 655 (People v. Ball) 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. Ball, 126 A.D.2d 655, 511 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), imposed October 4, 1983, upon his conviction of sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the circumstances, the imposed sentence of 3 to 9 years did not constitute an abuse of the sentencing court’s discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Moreover, given the fact that the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive this sentence, he has no basis to now complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Seidell, J.), imposed October 4, 1983, upon his conviction of sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

In view of the circumstances, the imposed sentence of 3 to 9 years did not constitute an abuse of the sentencing court’s discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Moreover, given the fact that the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive this sentence, he has no basis to now complain that the sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.2d 655, 511 N.Y.S.2d 83, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 41783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ball-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack