People v. Cruzetta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cruzetta

156 A.D.2d 198, 548 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15451

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 156 A.D.2d 198 (People v. Cruzetta) 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. Cruzetta, 156 A.D.2d 198, 548 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15451 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on June 7, 1984, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 6 to 18 years on the robbery count and from 5 to 15 years on the attempted robbery count, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered on June 7, 1984, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree and attempted robbery in the first degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of from 6 to 18 years on the robbery count and from 5 to 15 years on the attempted robbery count, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Carro, Wallach, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

156 A.D.2d 198, 548 N.Y.S.2d 889, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15451, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cruzetta-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack