People v. Durward

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Durward

167 A.D.2d 670, 562 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13590

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 167 A.D.2d 670 (People v. Durward) 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. Durward, 167 A.D.2d 670, 562 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13590 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered September 25, 1989, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that he was induced into pleading guilty to violating his probation on the belief that he would receive a one-year jail sentence as recommended by the People. County Court is not bound by a plea agreement with respect to any recommendation as to sentencing and, in fact, it must exercise its own discretion and give a sentence it deems appropriate (see, People v Terry, 152 AD2d 822, 823). Under the circumstances here, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment, especially since the court twice informed defendant that it was not bound by the People’s sentencing recommendation and each time defendant acknowledged that he understood this.

Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, 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 Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered September 25, 1989, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant’s only contention on appeal is that he was induced into pleading guilty to violating his probation on the belief that he would receive a one-year jail sentence as recommended by the People. County Court is not bound by a plea agreement with respect to any recommendation as to sentencing and, in fact, it must exercise its own discretion and give a sentence it deems appropriate (see, People v Terry, 152 AD2d 822, 823). Under the circumstances here, it cannot be said that the court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment, especially since the court twice informed defendant that it was not bound by the People’s sentencing recommendation and each time defendant acknowledged that he understood this.

Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

167 A.D.2d 670, 562 N.Y.S.2d 879, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13590, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-durward-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack