People v. Delpesce

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Delpesce

68 A.D.3d 1131, 890 N.Y.2d 342

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 22, 2009·Published·Cited by 4 cases

Opinion

Since “the defendant admitted to the violation^] of probation with a full understanding that he would receive the term of imprisonment actually imposed at the time of resentencing, . . . he has no basis now to complain that his re-sentence was excessive” (People v Grzywaczewski, 61 AD3d 699, 700 [2009]; see People v Trias, 50 AD3d 828, 828-829 [2008]). In any event, the resentence was not excessive (see People v Hobson, 43 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2007]; People v Costanza, 36 AD3d 829, 830 [2007]; People v Arogundy, 112 AD2d 1003, 1004 [1985]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

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

Since “the defendant admitted to the violation^] of probation with a full understanding that he would receive the term of imprisonment actually imposed at the time of resentencing, . . . he has no basis now to complain that his re-sentence was excessive” (People v Grzywaczewski, 61 AD3d 699, 700 [2009]; see People v Trias, 50 AD3d 828, 828-829 [2008]). In any event, the resentence was not excessive (see People v Hobson, 43 AD3d 1179, 1180 [2007]; People v Costanza, 36 AD3d 829, 830 [2007]; People v Arogundy, 112 AD2d 1003, 1004 [1985]; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Mastro, J.P., Balkin, Belen and Chambers, JJ., concur.

People v. Delpesce, 68 A.D.3d 1131, 890 N.Y.2d 342 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

68 A.D.3d 1131 (People v. Delpesce) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related