People v. Garcia

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garcia

280 A.D.2d 682, 721 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1782

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

DecidedFebruary 26, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 682 (People v. Garcia) 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. Garcia, 280 A.D.2d 682, 721 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1782 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the de[683]*683fendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), imposed March 10, 2000, upon remittitur from this Court (see, People v Garcia, 267 AD2d 247).

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the resentencing court complied with the mandates of Penal Law § 70.10 (2). The court adequately stated on the record the reasons it was of the opinion that the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct demonstrated that extended incarceration and lifetime supervision would best serve the public interest (see, People v Smith, 254 AD2d 377; People v Corrica, 243 AD2d 722; People v Dell'Orfano, 217 AD2d 588; People v Montes, 135 AD2d 838; cf., People v Gaines, 136 AD2d 731, 733). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the de[683]*683fendant from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Naro, J.), imposed March 10, 2000, upon remittitur from this Court (see, People v Garcia, 267 AD2d 247).

Ordered that the resentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the resentencing court complied with the mandates of Penal Law § 70.10 (2). The court adequately stated on the record the reasons it was of the opinion that the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct demonstrated that extended incarceration and lifetime supervision would best serve the public interest (see, People v Smith, 254 AD2d 377; People v Corrica, 243 AD2d 722; People v Dell'Orfano, 217 AD2d 588; People v Montes, 135 AD2d 838; cf., People v Gaines, 136 AD2d 731, 733). Krausman, J. P., S. Miller, McGinity and Feuerstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 682, 721 N.Y.S.2d 545, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1782, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garcia-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack