People v. Dashnau

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dashnau

57 A.D.3d 1020, 867 N.Y.2d 924, 56 A.D.2d 899, 868 N.Y.S.2d 323

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.3d 1020 (People v. Dashnau) 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. Dashnau, 57 A.D.3d 1020, 867 N.Y.2d 924, 56 A.D.2d 899, 868 N.Y.S.2d 323 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Having shot a man in the chest, defendant resolved a four-count indictment by pleading guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. County Court thereafter sentenced [1021]*1021defendant as negotiated to five years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, asserting that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. Upon our review of the record, we disagree. Noting the seriousness of the underlying crime, as well as defendant’s extensive criminal history, we discern neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of any extraordinary circumstances justifying a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Manning, 49 AD3d 966 [2008]). Consequently, the judgment is affirmed.

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Having shot a man in the chest, defendant resolved a four-count indictment by pleading guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. County Court thereafter sentenced [1021]*1021defendant as negotiated to five years in prison and five years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, asserting that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive. Upon our review of the record, we disagree. Noting the seriousness of the underlying crime, as well as defendant’s extensive criminal history, we discern neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of any extraordinary circumstances justifying a modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Manning, 49 AD3d 966 [2008]). Consequently, the judgment is affirmed.

Spain, J.P., Carpinello, Malone Jr., Kavanagh and Stein, JJ. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.3d 1020, 867 N.Y.2d 924, 56 A.D.2d 899, 868 N.Y.S.2d 323, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dashnau-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack