People v. Byron TT

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Byron TT

52 A.D.2d 967, 382 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12842

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

DecidedMay 6, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 52 A.D.2d 967 (People v. Byron TT) 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. Byron TT, 52 A.D.2d 967, 382 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered March 7, 1975, which adjudged defendant to be a youthful offender. Following his plea of guilty to a charge of second degree forgery, defendant, age 17, was adjudicated a youthful offender and was sentenced as such to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of not more than four years. The only issue raised on this appeal is that the sentence is excessive. Absent a clear abuse of discretion by the sentencing court, a sentence will not be disturbed (People v Dittmar, 41 AD2d 788). In this case all of the relevant facts and circumstances were before the court, including a probation officer’s report, and we cannot say the court abused its discretion in the sentence imposed. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered March 7, 1975, which adjudged defendant to be a youthful offender. Following his plea of guilty to a charge of second degree forgery, defendant, age 17, was adjudicated a youthful offender and was sentenced as such to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of not more than four years. The only issue raised on this appeal is that the sentence is excessive. Absent a clear abuse of discretion by the sentencing court, a sentence will not be disturbed (People v Dittmar, 41 AD2d 788). In this case all of the relevant facts and circumstances were before the court, including a probation officer’s report, and we cannot say the court abused its discretion in the sentence imposed. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 967, 382 N.Y.S.2d 848, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-byron-tt-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack