People v. Crutchfield

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Crutchfield

125 A.D.2d 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62588

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

DecidedDecember 1, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 125 A.D.2d 324 (People v. Crutchfield) 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. Crutchfield, 125 A.D.2d 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62588 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McMahon, J.), rendered March 22, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record before us discloses that the sentencing court considered all pertinent information, including the arguments advanced by the defendant and his counsel, prior to imposing the sentence which the defendant now challenges. We find that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in [325]*325imposing the sentence that had previously been agreed upon during the plea negotiations.

We further note that the defendant’s entry of a guilty plea precludes appellate review of the arguments raised in his pro se brief and that these arguments, in any event, are devoid of merit. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (McMahon, J.), rendered March 22, 1984, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record before us discloses that the sentencing court considered all pertinent information, including the arguments advanced by the defendant and his counsel, prior to imposing the sentence which the defendant now challenges. We find that the sentencing court did not abuse its discretion in [325]*325imposing the sentence that had previously been agreed upon during the plea negotiations.

We further note that the defendant’s entry of a guilty plea precludes appellate review of the arguments raised in his pro se brief and that these arguments, in any event, are devoid of merit. Mangano, J. P., Weinstein, Lawrence and Hooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

125 A.D.2d 324, 508 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 62588, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crutchfield-nyappdiv-1986.