People v. Donald R. E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Donald R. E.

53 A.D.2d 780, 384 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13567

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

DecidedJune 17, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 780 (People v. Donald R. E.) 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. Donald R. E., 53 A.D.2d 780, 384 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13567 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered July 28, 1975, which adjudged defendant a youthful offender and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of four years. Defendant, represented by counsel prior and subsequent to indictment, entered a plea in open court of guilty of burglary in the third degree, the first count of an indictment. He was thereafter adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which was four years. On this appeal, the defendant raises two issues, the first of which is that he had inadequate representation by counsel. While it is true that there were no pretrial motions, which is the sole basis alleged for inadequate representation, the record indicates that the defendant, on motion of his counsel, was adjudicated a youthful offender and, further, that a negotiated plea was entered which resulted in the [781]*781dismissal of certain other informations pending against the defendant herein. We conclude that the record herein is void of any indication of incompétency or inadequacy on the part of defendant’s counsel (People v Bennett, 29 NY2d 462; People v Brown, 7 NY2d 359). As to the second contention of the defendant, that the sentence was excessive, we find that the sentence imposed, which was within the discretion and authority of the sentencing Judge, should not be disturbed (People v Gemmill, 34 AD2d 177; People v Caputo, 13 AD2d 861). Judgment affirmed. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Mahoney, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered July 28, 1975, which adjudged defendant a youthful offender and sentenced him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of four years. Defendant, represented by counsel prior and subsequent to indictment, entered a plea in open court of guilty of burglary in the third degree, the first count of an indictment. He was thereafter adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which was four years. On this appeal, the defendant raises two issues, the first of which is that he had inadequate representation by counsel. While it is true that there were no pretrial motions, which is the sole basis alleged for inadequate representation, the record indicates that the defendant, on motion of his counsel, was adjudicated a youthful offender and, further, that a negotiated plea was entered which resulted in the [781]*781dismissal of certain other informations pending against the defendant herein. We conclude that the record herein is void of any indication of incompétency or inadequacy on the part of defendant’s counsel (People v Bennett, 29 NY2d 462; People v Brown, 7 NY2d 359). As to the second contention of the defendant, that the sentence was excessive, we find that the sentence imposed, which was within the discretion and authority of the sentencing Judge, should not be disturbed (People v Gemmill, 34 AD2d 177; People v Caputo, 13 AD2d 861). Judgment affirmed. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Mahoney, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 780, 384 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-donald-r-e-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack