People v. Fortune

268 A.D.2d 686, 700 N.Y.S.2d 776, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 238
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 13, 2000
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 268 A.D.2d 686 (People v. Fortune) 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. Fortune, 268 A.D.2d 686, 700 N.Y.S.2d 776, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 238 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Sullivan County (LaBuda, J.), rendered February 19, 1998, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree.

Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count each of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree. Defendant was sentenced to concurrent terms of 3V2 to 7 years in prison for the weapon charge and one year in prison for the drug charge. Defendant’s sole argument on appeal is that his sentence was harsh and excessive, a contention we cannot endorse. Notably, a sentence within permissible statutory ranges will not be disturbed unless extraordinary circumstances or an abuse of sentencing discretion exist warranting a modification (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 NY2d 872; People v Parson, 209 AD2d 882, 884, lv denied 84 NY2d 1014). Here, the sentence imposed was authorized and, given defendant’s history and the details in the record, we find no reason to disturb the sentence in the interest of justice. Furthermore, contrary to defendant’s argument, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was longer than that offered to defendant in a proposed pretrial plea bargain agreement did not establish that the sentence was imposed in retaliation for exercising his right to trial (see, People v Morgan, 253 AD2d 946, lv denied 92 NY2d 950).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Spain, Carpinello and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Related

People v. Wandell
285 A.D.2d 736 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
268 A.D.2d 686, 700 N.Y.S.2d 776, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-fortune-nyappdiv-2000.