People v. Baron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Baron

199 A.D.2d 326, 606 N.Y.S.2d 995

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

DecidedDecember 13, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 326 (People v. Baron) 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. Baron, 199 A.D.2d 326, 606 N.Y.S.2d 995 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), imposed November 17, 1992, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 4 to 12 years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the term of imprisonment to an indeterminate term of 1 to 3 years; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, we find that the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal his sentence was not valid (see, People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273, 282-283). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, we find that the sentence imposed upon the defendant, a 16-year-old first offender, was excessive to the extent indicated (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenblatt, Eiber and Joy, 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 motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Buchter, J.), imposed November 17, 1992, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 4 to 12 years.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the term of imprisonment to an indeterminate term of 1 to 3 years; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the People’s contention, we find that the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal his sentence was not valid (see, People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273, 282-283). Furthermore, under the circumstances of this case, we find that the sentence imposed upon the defendant, a 16-year-old first offender, was excessive to the extent indicated (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenblatt, Eiber and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 326, 606 N.Y.S.2d 995, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-baron-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack