People v. Downing

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Downing

151 A.D.2d 691

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

DecidedJune 19, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 151 A.D.2d 691 (People v. Downing) 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. Downing, 151 A.D.2d 691 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered July 28, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s position, the sentence imposed, which was the minimum permissible sentence under the circumstances, did not constitute an improvident exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80) and did not violate the defendant’s constitutional protections against cruel and inhuman punishment (NY Const, art I, [692]*692§ 5; US Const 8th Amend). In any event, the defendant has no cause to complain since the sentence was the product of a negotiated plea (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Nelson, J.), rendered July 28, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s position, the sentence imposed, which was the minimum permissible sentence under the circumstances, did not constitute an improvident exercise of the sentencing court’s discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80) and did not violate the defendant’s constitutional protections against cruel and inhuman punishment (NY Const, art I, [692]*692§ 5; US Const 8th Amend). In any event, the defendant has no cause to complain since the sentence was the product of a negotiated plea (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

151 A.D.2d 691, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-downing-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack