People v. Chance

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Chance

260 A.D.2d 160, 685 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3225

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

DecidedApril 1, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 260 A.D.2d 160 (People v. Chance) 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. Chance, 260 A.D.2d 160, 685 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3225 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.), rendered July 21, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 years and 3 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the burglary in the second degree conviction to a determinate term of 6 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was balanced and a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455), since the underlying facts of defendant’s convictions were highly relevant to his credibility.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

We have considered and rejected the claims presented in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Bradley, J.), rendered July 21, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the second degree and robbery in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 8 years and 3 to 6 years, respectively, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the burglary in the second degree conviction to a determinate term of 6 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling was balanced and a proper exercise of discretion (see, People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455), since the underlying facts of defendant’s convictions were highly relevant to his credibility.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated.

We have considered and rejected the claims presented in defendant’s pro se supplemental brief. Concur — Ellerin, P. J., Tom, Wallach and Saxe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 160, 685 N.Y.S.2d 615, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3225, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-chance-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack