People v. Gomez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gomez

57 A.D.2d 904, 394 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12139

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

DecidedMay 16, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 904 (People v. Gomez) 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. Gomez, 57 A.D.2d 904, 394 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12139 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County, imposed February 17, 1976, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree, on a plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate period of imprisonment, with a maximum of eight years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to an indeterminate period of imprisonment with a maximum of five years. As so modified, sentence affirmed. In our view a sentence reduction is warranted by reason of (1) defendant’s intercession with his codefendants to prevent a .crime of bodily harm upon the complainant and [905]*905(2) his unblemished record prior to this conviction. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County, imposed February 17, 1976, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree, on a plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate period of imprisonment, with a maximum of eight years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to an indeterminate period of imprisonment with a maximum of five years. As so modified, sentence affirmed. In our view a sentence reduction is warranted by reason of (1) defendant’s intercession with his codefendants to prevent a .crime of bodily harm upon the complainant and [905]*905(2) his unblemished record prior to this conviction. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 904, 394 N.Y.S.2d 287, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12139, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gomez-nyappdiv-1977.