People v. Dunnell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dunnell

172 A.D.2d 407, 570 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000

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

DecidedApril 25, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 172 A.D.2d 407 (People v. Dunnell) 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. Dunnell, 172 A.D.2d 407, 570 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered on September 23, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years on each count, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied [408]*40872 NY2d 918.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Price, J.), rendered on September 23, 1988, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of attempted murder in the second degree and robbery in the first degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 5 to 15 years on each count, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied [408]*40872 NY2d 918.) Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 A.D.2d 407, 570 N.Y.S.2d 912, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5000, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dunnell-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack