People v. Brabham

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brabham

66 A.D.2d 557, 886 N.Y.S.2d 595

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

DecidedOctober 22, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 66 A.D.2d 557 (People v. Brabham) 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. Brabham, 66 A.D.2d 557, 886 N.Y.S.2d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward and Michael R. Ambrecht, JJ., at pleas; Michael R. Ambrecht, J., at sentence), rendered June 30, 2006, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 4 to 8 years and IV2 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and to the extent of directing that the sentences be served concurrently, and otherwise affirmed.

We find there are “mitigating circumstances” (Penal Law § 70.25 [2-c]) warranting a concurrent sentence for bail jumping, and that the imposition of a consecutive sentence was excessive.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s argument that his bail jumping conviction should be vacated. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Laura A. Ward and Michael R. Ambrecht, JJ., at pleas; Michael R. Ambrecht, J., at sentence), rendered June 30, 2006, convicting defendant of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and bail jumping in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 4 to 8 years and IV2 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and to the extent of directing that the sentences be served concurrently, and otherwise affirmed.

We find there are “mitigating circumstances” (Penal Law § 70.25 [2-c]) warranting a concurrent sentence for bail jumping, and that the imposition of a consecutive sentence was excessive.

We have considered and rejected defendant’s argument that his bail jumping conviction should be vacated. Concur— Gonzalez, P.J., Mazzarelli, Sweeny, Renwick and Richter, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

66 A.D.2d 557, 886 N.Y.S.2d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brabham-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack