People v. Enriquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Enriquez

157 A.D.2d 619, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 837, 551 N.Y.S.2d 777

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 157 A.D.2d 619 (People v. Enriquez) 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. Enriquez, 157 A.D.2d 619, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 837, 551 N.Y.S.2d 777 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Roth-wax, J.), rendered on or about April 20, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 1 to 3 years, to run consecutively to an indeterminate term of from six years to life imposed upon defendant following his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, 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 72 NY2d 918.)

Finally, the court exercised its discretion appropriately in imposing consecutive sentences. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Roth-wax, J.), rendered on or about April 20, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 1 to 3 years, to run consecutively to an indeterminate term of from six years to life imposed upon defendant following his plea of guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, 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 72 NY2d 918.)

Finally, the court exercised its discretion appropriately in imposing consecutive sentences. Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Carro, Milonas and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 619, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 837, 551 N.Y.S.2d 777, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-enriquez-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack