People v. Cato

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cato

226 A.D.2d 1066, 642 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5523

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided April 19, 1996·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that County Court properly determined that defendant violated the conditions of the sentencing commitment. Because defendant violated those conditions, the court was not bound by the sentencing commitment and could impose a greater sentence without providing defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea (see, People v Thompson, 221 AD2d 1016). We further conclude that the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Márks, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: We conclude that County Court properly determined that defendant violated the conditions of the sentencing commitment. Because defendant violated those conditions, the court was not bound by the sentencing commitment and could impose a greater sentence without providing defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea (see, People v Thompson, 221 AD2d 1016). We further conclude that the enhanced sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Monroe County Court, Márks, J.—Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present—Pine, J. P., Lawton, Wesley, Balio and Davis, JJ.

People v. Cato, 226 A.D.2d 1066, 642 N.Y.S.2d 105, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5523 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

226 A.D.2d 1066 (People v. Cato) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related