People v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Daniels

281 A.D.2d 651, 721 N.Y.S.2d 567, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2028

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 1, 2001·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.), rendered October 26, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of two indictments and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years in prison. Defendant appeals contending that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

We affirm. A sentence within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unless extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification in the interest of justice (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 NY2d 872). Given defendant’s criminal record, we find no reason to disturb the sentence (see, People v Biggs, 268 AD2d 800).

Cardona, P. J., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Buckley, J.), rendered October 26, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree in full satisfaction of two indictments and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of 5 to 10 years in prison. Defendant appeals contending that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive.

We affirm. A sentence within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed unless extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification in the interest of justice (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 NY2d 872). Given defendant’s criminal record, we find no reason to disturb the sentence (see, People v Biggs, 268 AD2d 800).

Cardona, P. J., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

People v. Daniels, 281 A.D.2d 651, 721 N.Y.S.2d 567, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2028 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

281 A.D.2d 651 (People v. Daniels) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related