People v. Castrillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Castrillo

260 A.D.2d 280, 690 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4179

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

DecidedApril 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 280 (People v. Castrillo) 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. Castrillo, 260 A.D.2d 280, 690 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4179 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered May 21, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion, since the prior convictions were probative of defendant’s credibility, as were his prior use of aliases and false dates of birth (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455).

On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL article 440 motion whereby matters of strategy could be explained (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998), we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (David Stadtmauer, J.), rendered May 21, 1996, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 6 to 18 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion, since the prior convictions were probative of defendant’s credibility, as were his prior use of aliases and false dates of birth (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455).

On the existing record, which defendant has not sought to amplify by way of a CPL article 440 motion whereby matters of strategy could be explained (see, People v Love, 57 NY2d 998), we conclude that defendant received meaningful representation (see, People v Benevento, 91 NY2d 708, 713-714; People v Hobot, 84 NY2d 1021, 1024).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Tom, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 280, 690 N.Y.S.2d 10, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4179, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-castrillo-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack