People v. Boatwright

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Boatwright

159 A.D.2d 510

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

DecidedMarch 5, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 159 A.D.2d 510 (People v. Boatwright) 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. Boatwright, 159 A.D.2d 510 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Orange County (Carey, J.), imposed April 26, 1988, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The sentence imposed does not constitute cruel and unusual in violation of constitutional limitations (NY [511]*511Const, art I, §5; US Const 8th Amend; People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694; People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, cert denied 423 US 950). Nor do we find, under the circumstances of this case, that the sentence, which was within the legally permissible range for a second felony offender convicted of a class B felony offense (Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [b]; [4] [b]), was excessive. In any event, the sentence was the product of a negotiated plea bargain and, thus, the defendant has no cause to complain that it was unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, 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, Orange County (Carey, J.), imposed April 26, 1988, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The sentence imposed does not constitute cruel and unusual in violation of constitutional limitations (NY [511]*511Const, art I, §5; US Const 8th Amend; People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694; People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, cert denied 423 US 950). Nor do we find, under the circumstances of this case, that the sentence, which was within the legally permissible range for a second felony offender convicted of a class B felony offense (Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [b]; [4] [b]), was excessive. In any event, the sentence was the product of a negotiated plea bargain and, thus, the defendant has no cause to complain that it was unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Sullivan, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 510, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-boatwright-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack