People v. Colombani

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Colombani

159 A.D.2d 271, 552 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2654

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

DecidedMarch 13, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D.2d 271 (People v. Colombani) 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. Colombani, 159 A.D.2d 271, 552 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2654 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.), rendered March 23, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the first degree and sentencing him to five years’ probation and, upon defendant’s violation of the conditions thereof, resentencing him to an indeterminate term of from 2 Vs to 7 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence of imprisonment, imposed after a violation of probation, was unduly harsh or excessive. Taking into account, "the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, as well as defendant’s inability to abide by the conditions of his probation, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was specifically informed by the plea court that if he violated the terms of probation, he "could then be brought back * * * and receive seven years in prison”. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (George Roberts, J.), rendered March 23, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the first degree and sentencing him to five years’ probation and, upon defendant’s violation of the conditions thereof, resentencing him to an indeterminate term of from 2 Vs to 7 years’ imprisonment, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence of imprisonment, imposed after a violation of probation, was unduly harsh or excessive. Taking into account, "the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, as well as defendant’s inability to abide by the conditions of his probation, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was specifically informed by the plea court that if he violated the terms of probation, he "could then be brought back * * * and receive seven years in prison”. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 271, 552 N.Y.S.2d 272, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2654, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-colombani-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack