People v. Cumming

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cumming

128 A.D.2d 631, 513 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44320

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 128 A.D.2d 631 (People v. Cumming) 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. Cumming, 128 A.D.2d 631, 513 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44320 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), rendered January 30, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender. His prior conviction under a Federal forgery statute (18 USC § 495) clearly meets the criteria set forth in Penal Law § 70.06 for second felony offender status (see, Penal Law §§ 170.10, 170.25; People v Cates, 104 AD2d 895, 896-897).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those set forth in his pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, 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 County Court, Nassau County (Winick, J.), rendered January 30, 1985, convicting him of robbery in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was properly sentenced as a second felony offender. His prior conviction under a Federal forgery statute (18 USC § 495) clearly meets the criteria set forth in Penal Law § 70.06 for second felony offender status (see, Penal Law §§ 170.10, 170.25; People v Cates, 104 AD2d 895, 896-897).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those set forth in his pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Niehoff, J. P., Lawrence, Weinstein and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

128 A.D.2d 631, 513 N.Y.S.2d 28, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 44320, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cumming-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack