People v. Foster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Foster

42 A.D.2d 801, 346 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4592

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

DecidedJuly 19, 1973

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 42 A.D.2d 801 (People v. Foster) 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. Foster, 42 A.D.2d 801, 346 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4592 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Rensselaer County, rendered July 27, 1972, which resenteneed defendant, following a conviction after a jury trial of attempted robbery in the first degree, to an indeterminate term of not less than five years nor more than 15 years. We find that the challenged errors in the identification process both before and during the trial were before us on the appeal from the original judgment of conviction. (People v. Foster, 38 A D 2d 989.) An appeal from alleged errors committed at the trial is not available on an appeal from a resentence, especially where defendant appealed from the original judgment of conviction. (People v. Chirco, 19 A D 2d 729.) Consequently, the only issue on this appeal is whether the resentence imposed upon defendant was, under all the circumstances, either harsh or excessive. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in the sentence imposed. The unavailability of rehabilitation programs for the legally blind does not render the sentence either harsh or excessive. Judgment affirmed. Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, 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 Rensselaer County, rendered July 27, 1972, which resenteneed defendant, following a conviction after a jury trial of attempted robbery in the first degree, to an indeterminate term of not less than five years nor more than 15 years. We find that the challenged errors in the identification process both before and during the trial were before us on the appeal from the original judgment of conviction. (People v. Foster, 38 A D 2d 989.) An appeal from alleged errors committed at the trial is not available on an appeal from a resentence, especially where defendant appealed from the original judgment of conviction. (People v. Chirco, 19 A D 2d 729.) Consequently, the only issue on this appeal is whether the resentence imposed upon defendant was, under all the circumstances, either harsh or excessive. We cannot say that the court abused its discretion in the sentence imposed. The unavailability of rehabilitation programs for the legally blind does not render the sentence either harsh or excessive. Judgment affirmed. Staley, Jr., Greenblott, Sweeney, Kane and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 801, 346 N.Y.S.2d 362, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4592, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-foster-nyappdiv-1973.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack