People v. Bines

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bines

167 A.D.2d 185, 562 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13532

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Bines. Read the opinion of the Court — 137 A.D.2d 431 →

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 13, 1990·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered on January 12, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentencing him to an indefinite term of imprisonment of 2V¿ to 5 years, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound [186]*186by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, Iv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Brenda Soloff, J.), rendered on January 12, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and sentencing him to an indefinite term of imprisonment of 2V¿ to 5 years, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound [186]*186by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, Iv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

People v. Bines, 167 A.D.2d 185, 562 N.Y.S.2d 412, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13532 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

167 A.D.2d 185 (People v. Bines) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related