People v. Cauley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cauley

207 A.D.2d 935, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8968

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

DecidedSeptember 22, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 207 A.D.2d 935 (People v. Cauley) 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. Cauley, 207 A.D.2d 935, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered July 19, 1993, convicting defendant upon [936]*936his plea of guilty of the crimes of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated.

We reject defendant’s claim that the concurrent sentences of 1 to 3 years in prison with a $1,000 fine that he negotiated should now be reduced in the interest of justice. These sentences were within statutory guidelines and defendant received a substantial benefit by pleading as he did in satisfaction of all charges. Under the circumstances presented here, we find no reason to disturb the disposition rendered by County Court.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered July 19, 1993, convicting defendant upon [936]*936his plea of guilty of the crimes of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and driving while intoxicated.

We reject defendant’s claim that the concurrent sentences of 1 to 3 years in prison with a $1,000 fine that he negotiated should now be reduced in the interest of justice. These sentences were within statutory guidelines and defendant received a substantial benefit by pleading as he did in satisfaction of all charges. Under the circumstances presented here, we find no reason to disturb the disposition rendered by County Court.

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, White, Casey and Weiss, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

207 A.D.2d 935, 616 N.Y.S.2d 1020, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cauley-nyappdiv-1994.