People v. Burgos

186 A.D.2d 467, 589 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12154
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Burgos. Read the opinion of the Court — 170 A.D.2d 689

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Roth-wax, J.), rendered January 30, 1991, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 to 15 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea was conditioned on a 2 to 6 year sentence, which was in turn, conditioned on defendant’s cooperation with the prosecutor. At sentencing, the People alleged that defendant had failed to cooperate. That failure was confirmed by defendant’s trial counsel, who had attended the meeting at which the defendant had told the prosecutor that he had no information to give.

Accordingly, the record sufficiently states the reasons why the conditional sentence based upon defendant’s cooperation was not imposed (People v Pistone, 143 AD2d 852). Defendant has also failed to show that the enhanced sentence imposed was an abuse of discretion. Concur — Carro, J. P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

People v. Burgos, 186 A.D.2d 467, 589 N.Y.S.2d 776, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12154 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

186 A.D.2d 467 (People v. Burgos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Pistone
143 A.D.2d 852 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)