People v. Erazo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Erazo

263 A.D.2d 460, 691 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7720

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

DecidedJuly 6, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 263 A.D.2d 460 (People v. Erazo) 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. Erazo, 263 A.D.2d 460, 691 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered June 4, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third [461]*461degree and attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, his sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit (see, 22 NYCRR 670.6 [a]; People v Wright, 56 NY2d 613; Cuyler v Sullivan, 446 US 335; People v Adams, 247 AD2d 819). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), rendered June 4, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third [461]*461degree and attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s argument, his sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining arguments are without merit (see, 22 NYCRR 670.6 [a]; People v Wright, 56 NY2d 613; Cuyler v Sullivan, 446 US 335; People v Adams, 247 AD2d 819). Ritter, J. P., Thompson, Altman and Friedmann, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 460, 691 N.Y.S.2d 908, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-erazo-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack