People v. Edwards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Edwards

140 A.D.2d 539, 528 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5440

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

DecidedMay 16, 1988

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 140 A.D.2d 539 (People v. Edwards) 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. Edwards, 140 A.D.2d 539, 528 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5440 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Pincite

Opinion

The trial court did not improperly penalize the defendant for exercising his right to trial by imposing a heavier sentence after trial than one offered during plea negotiations, nor did the court impose an excessive sentence. Although the sentence handed down by the trial court was the maximum allowable for the crime, it was not excessive in light of the defendant’s prior criminal record and the information set forth in his probation report (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s admonition to the jury during summation was unfair is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the comment was not unfair (see, People v Torres, 111 AD2d 885). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

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

The trial court did not improperly penalize the defendant for exercising his right to trial by imposing a heavier sentence after trial than one offered during plea negotiations, nor did the court impose an excessive sentence. Although the sentence handed down by the trial court was the maximum allowable for the crime, it was not excessive in light of the defendant’s prior criminal record and the information set forth in his probation report (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s claim that the prosecutor’s admonition to the jury during summation was unfair is not preserved for appellate review (CPL 470.05 [2]). In any event, the comment was not unfair (see, People v Torres, 111 AD2d 885). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Brown and Kunzeman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.2d 539, 528 N.Y.S.2d 349, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5440, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-edwards-nyappdiv-1988.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack