People v. DeTomaso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. DeTomaso

186 A.D.2d 1023

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 186 A.D.2d 1023 (People v. DeTomaso) 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. DeTomaso, 186 A.D.2d 1023 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive, and there was no abuse of discretion by the sentencing court that would support a modification of defendant’s sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305). The fact that defendant received a more severe sentence than his codefendants does not warrant a reduction of his sentence (see, People v Warden, 141 AD2d 913, 914). In imposing sentence, the sentencing court was entitled to consider the codefendants’ extensive cooperation with the authorities and defendant’s relative lack of cooperation (see, People v Merchant, 171 AD2d 887, 888; People v Warden, supra, at 914). Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Conspiracy, 2nd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive, and there was no abuse of discretion by the sentencing court that would support a modification of defendant’s sentence (see, People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305). The fact that defendant received a more severe sentence than his codefendants does not warrant a reduction of his sentence (see, People v Warden, 141 AD2d 913, 914). In imposing sentence, the sentencing court was entitled to consider the codefendants’ extensive cooperation with the authorities and defendant’s relative lack of cooperation (see, People v Merchant, 171 AD2d 887, 888; People v Warden, supra, at 914). Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea agreement. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918). (Appeal from Judgment of Onondaga County Court, Burke, J. — Conspiracy, 2nd Degree.) Present — Boomer, J. P., Green, Balio, Fallon and Davis, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

186 A.D.2d 1023, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-detomaso-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack