People v. Cancel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cancel

266 A.D.2d 306, 698 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11276

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

DecidedNovember 8, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 266 A.D.2d 306 (People v. Cancel) 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. Cancel, 266 A.D.2d 306, 698 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11276 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrero, J.), rendered April 11, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was penalized for going to trial rather than accepting a plea agreement, is unpreserved for appellate review, having never been raised before the sentencing court (see, People v Giordano, 87 NY2d 441; People v Hurley, 75 NY2d 887). In any event, it is firmly established that a sentence imposed after trial may be more severe than that proposed in connection with a plea (see, People v Clarke, [307]*307195 AD2d 569, 570-571; People v Nelson, 179 AD2d 784, 786). Here, the sentencing minutes indicate that the court relied upon the appropriate factors in sentencing the defendant to a higher sentence than that which was offered during plea negotiations (see, People v Diaz, 190 AD2d 685, 687).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and H. Miller, 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 (Marrero, J.), rendered April 11, 1997, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that he was penalized for going to trial rather than accepting a plea agreement, is unpreserved for appellate review, having never been raised before the sentencing court (see, People v Giordano, 87 NY2d 441; People v Hurley, 75 NY2d 887). In any event, it is firmly established that a sentence imposed after trial may be more severe than that proposed in connection with a plea (see, People v Clarke, [307]*307195 AD2d 569, 570-571; People v Nelson, 179 AD2d 784, 786). Here, the sentencing minutes indicate that the court relied upon the appropriate factors in sentencing the defendant to a higher sentence than that which was offered during plea negotiations (see, People v Diaz, 190 AD2d 685, 687).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). S. Miller, J. P., Sullivan, Krausman and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 306, 698 N.Y.S.2d 523, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11276, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cancel-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack