People v. Geigel

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Geigel

196 A.D.2d 507, 601 N.Y.S.2d 845

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

DecidedAugust 2, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 196 A.D.2d 507 (People v. Geigel) 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. Geigel, 196 A.D.2d 507, 601 N.Y.S.2d 845 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered September 9, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree (three counts), and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s claim that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying him youthful offender status (see, CPL 720.20 [1] [a]; People v Schwarz, 183 AD2d 859; People v Worthington, 173 AD2d 665). Moreover, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Mallon, J.), rendered September 9, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (three counts), attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first degree (three counts), and aggravated harassment in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We find no merit to the defendant’s claim that the court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying him youthful offender status (see, CPL 720.20 [1] [a]; People v Schwarz, 183 AD2d 859; People v Worthington, 173 AD2d 665). Moreover, the defendant’s sentence was not excessive (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 507, 601 N.Y.S.2d 845, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-geigel-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack