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

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

DecidedNovember 28, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 144 A.D.2d 690 (People v. DeMent) 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. 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

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

144 A.D.2d 690, 535 N.Y.S.2d 64, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12379, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dement-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack