People v. Breazil

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Breazil

120 A.D.2d 602, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56687

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

DecidedMay 12, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 120 A.D.2d 602 (People v. Breazil) 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. Breazil, 120 A.D.2d 602, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered July 12, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s right to counsel claim. Further, the alleged error in the court’s accomplice charge is unpreserved for appellate review, there having been no objec[603]*603tion registered in respect thereto at trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818). Finally, the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive under the circumstances of this case and in light of the defendant’s prior criminal involvement. Fiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Broomer, J.), rendered July 12, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (two counts), and robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

There is no merit to the defendant’s right to counsel claim. Further, the alleged error in the court’s accomplice charge is unpreserved for appellate review, there having been no objec[603]*603tion registered in respect thereto at trial (see, CPL 470.05; People v Nuccie, 57 NY2d 818). Finally, the sentence imposed was not unduly harsh or excessive under the circumstances of this case and in light of the defendant’s prior criminal involvement. Fiber, J. P., Kunzeman, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.2d 602, 501 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-breazil-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack