People v. Cogswell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cogswell

46 A.D.3d 1017, 846 N.Y.S.2d 922

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

DecidedDecember 13, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 1017 (People v. Cogswell) 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. Cogswell, 46 A.D.3d 1017, 846 N.Y.S.2d 922 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a [1018]*1018judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered November 21, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Satisfying a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced as negotiated to six months in jail and 10 years of probation. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. We disagree. Noting the reprehensible nature of the crime perpetrated on a child, we find neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of any extraordinary circumstances justifying a modification of the agreed-upon sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Ali-Rachedi, 34 AD3d 981, 981-982 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 878 [2007]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, 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 [1018]*1018judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered November 21, 2005, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Satisfying a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced as negotiated to six months in jail and 10 years of probation. Defendant now appeals, arguing that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. We disagree. Noting the reprehensible nature of the crime perpetrated on a child, we find neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of any extraordinary circumstances justifying a modification of the agreed-upon sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Ali-Rachedi, 34 AD3d 981, 981-982 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 878 [2007]).

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Carpinello, Mugglin and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 1017, 846 N.Y.S.2d 922, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cogswell-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack