People v. DeMent

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DeMent

144 A.D.2d 690, 535 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12379

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 28, 1988·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), imposed September 17, 1985, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The sentence imposed does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of constitutional proscriptions (NY Const, art I, § 5; US Const 8th Amend; People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694; People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, cert denied 423 US 950; People v Hoffman, 125 AD2d 407). Nor do we find the defendant’s sentence to be excessive. The sentence imposed upon the defendant as a second felony offender was the minimum sentence legally permissible (Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [d]; [4] [b]) and was the sentence for which the defendant freely bargained. Thus, he has no cause to complain that it is unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Hoffman, supra; People v Schwartz, 112 AD2d 257; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), imposed September 17, 1985, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 2 to 4 years’ imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The sentence imposed does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of constitutional proscriptions (NY Const, art I, § 5; US Const 8th Amend; People v Jones, 39 NY2d 694; People v Broadie, 37 NY2d 100, cert denied 423 US 950; People v Hoffman, 125 AD2d 407). Nor do we find the defendant’s sentence to be excessive. The sentence imposed upon the defendant as a second felony offender was the minimum sentence legally permissible (Penal Law § 70.06 [3] [d]; [4] [b]) and was the sentence for which the defendant freely bargained. Thus, he has no cause to complain that it is unduly harsh or excessive (see, People v Hoffman, supra; People v Schwartz, 112 AD2d 257; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Thompson, J. P., Lawrence, Rubin, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

People v. DeMent, 144 A.D.2d 690, 535 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12379 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

144 A.D.2d 690 (People v. DeMent) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related