People v. Bellilli

270 A.D.2d 355, 704 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2775
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 13, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by14 cases

This text of 270 A.D.2d 355 (People v. Bellilli) 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. Bellilli, 270 A.D.2d 355, 704 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2775 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Kuffner, J., at trial; Rooney, J., at sentencing), rendered February 27,, 1997, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (six counts) and robbery in the second degree (three counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations is no indication that the defendant was punished for asserting his right to proceed to trial (see, People v Lam, 226 AD2d 554, 555; People v Goolsby, 213 AD2d 722; People v Cosme, 203 AD2d 375; People v Clarke, 195 AD2d 569, 570-571). It is to be anticipated that sentences imposed after trial may be more severe than those proposed in connection with a plea (see, People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 412, cert denied 449 US 1087; People v Velez, 222 AD2d 539, 541; People v Street, 220 AD2d 704, 705; People v Rosemond, 226 AD2d 404; People v Patterson, 106 AD2d 520, 521).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his current medical condition does not, by itself, warrant the reduction of an otherwise appropriate sentence (see, People v King, 184 AD2d 782; People v Bonaventura, 168 AD2d 626; People v Chrzanowski, 147 AD2d 652). The defendant failed to establish that he would be unable to obtain proper medical treatment if incarcerated (see, People v Clark, 176 AD2d 1206).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. O’Brien, J. P., Sullivan, Luciano and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Martinez
55 A.D.3d 753 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Garcia
46 A.D.3d 573 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Tannis
36 A.D.3d 635 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2007)
People v. Norris
34 A.D.3d 500 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Davis
27 A.D.3d 761 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Plato
22 A.D.3d 507 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Page
6 A.D.3d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Santiago
4 A.D.3d 545 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)
People v. Carillo
297 A.D.2d 288 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Best
295 A.D.2d 441 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Spillett
294 A.D.2d 605 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2002)
People v. Anonymous
186 Misc. 2d 853 (New York Supreme Court, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
270 A.D.2d 355, 704 N.Y.S.2d 616, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2775, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bellilli-nyappdiv-2000.