People v. Brock

69 A.D.3d 644, 891 N.Y.2d 292
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 5, 2010·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review her contention that the sentence imposed by the Supreme Court improperly penalized her for exercising her right to a jury trial, because she did not set forth the issue on the record at the time of sentencing (see People v Hurley, 75 NY2d 887, 888 [1990]; People v Herrera, 16 AD3d 699, 700 [2005]). In any event, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was' greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations is no indication that the defendant was punished for asserting her right to proceed to trial (see People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 411-412 [1980], cert denied 449 US 1087 [1981]; People v Garcia, 66 AD3d 699 [2009]). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD 2d 80 [1982]). Covello, J.R, Santucci, Chambers and Hall, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Brock, 69 A.D.3d 644, 891 N.Y.2d 292 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2010).

69 A.D.3d 644 (People v. Brock) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lindsay
123 A.D.3d 1144 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Payton
100 A.D.3d 786 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Holley
87 A.D.3d 601 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)
People v. Givhan
78 A.D.3d 730 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)
People v. Rodriguez
73 A.D.3d 815 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2010)