People v. Cisco

219 A.D.2d 857, 632 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10972
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Cisco. Read the opinion of the Court — 208 A.D.2d 643

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: County Court’s sentence commitment to defendant was subject to the condition that defendant return to court for sentencing. Because defendant failed to appear for sentencing, the court was not bound by the commitment and was free to impose a greater sentence without giving defendant an opportunity to withdraw his plea (see, People v Shannon, 175 AD2d 614, 614-615; People v Thompson, 174 AD2d 1007, lv denied 78 NY2d 1082).

Defendant’s contention that the sentence is harsh and excessive is without merit. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Cunningham, J. — Criminal Sale Controlled Substance, 3rd Degree.) Present — Lawton, J. P., Fallon, Callahan, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

People v. Cisco, 219 A.D.2d 857, 632 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10972 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

219 A.D.2d 857 (People v. Cisco) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Thompson
174 A.D.2d 1007 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Shannon
175 A.D.2d 614 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)