People v. Brito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brito

154 A.D.2d 293, 547 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13423

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 154 A.D.2d 293 (People v. Brito) 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. Brito, 154 A.D.2d 293, 547 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13423 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas B. Galligan, J.), rendered October 7, 1987, 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; People v Bourne, 139 AD2d 210, lv denied 72 NY2d 955.)

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 by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Thomas B. Galligan, J.), rendered October 7, 1987, 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; People v Bourne, 139 AD2d 210, lv denied 72 NY2d 955.)

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 by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur — Murphy, P. J., Kupferman, Carro, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 A.D.2d 293, 547 N.Y.S.2d 220, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13423, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brito-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack