People v. Contes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Contes

72 A.D.2d 798, 421 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14055

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

DecidedNovember 19, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 72 A.D.2d 798 (People v. Contes) 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. Contes, 72 A.D.2d 798, 421 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14055 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 7, 1979, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from two to six years. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from zero to six years. As so modified, judgment affirmed. The record of defendant’s allocution is sufficient to support his plea of guilty. Moreover, there are no suggestions of misrepresentations or broken promises which could have rendered the plea involuntary. However, defendant’s potential for rehabilitation justifies a reduction in sentence. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered February 7, 1979, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from two to six years. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from zero to six years. As so modified, judgment affirmed. The record of defendant’s allocution is sufficient to support his plea of guilty. Moreover, there are no suggestions of misrepresentations or broken promises which could have rendered the plea involuntary. However, defendant’s potential for rehabilitation justifies a reduction in sentence. Rabin, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

72 A.D.2d 798, 421 N.Y.S.2d 830, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14055, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-contes-nyappdiv-1979.