People v. Corbett

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Corbett

266 A.D.2d 33, 698 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11390

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

DecidedNovember 9, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 266 A.D.2d 33 (People v. Corbett) 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. Corbett, 266 A.D.2d 33, 698 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11390 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered March 26, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s challenges for cause to three prospective jurors. Each of the prospective jurors provided sufficient assurances that their personal experiences would not affect their ability to render an impartial verdict (see, People v Williams, 63 NY2d 882, 884-885).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion and find that the sentence was not based on any improper criteria (People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 411, cert denied 449 US 1087). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Bernard Fried, J.), rendered March 26, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s challenges for cause to three prospective jurors. Each of the prospective jurors provided sufficient assurances that their personal experiences would not affect their ability to render an impartial verdict (see, People v Williams, 63 NY2d 882, 884-885).

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion and find that the sentence was not based on any improper criteria (People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, 411, cert denied 449 US 1087). Concur— Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Lerner, Rubin and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

266 A.D.2d 33, 698 N.Y.S.2d 18, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11390, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-corbett-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack