People v. Cisco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cisco

219 A.D.2d 857, 632 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10972

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1995

StatusPublished

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

Pincite

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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

219 A.D.2d 857, 632 N.Y.S.2d 351, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10972, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cisco-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack