People v. Hanrahan

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hanrahan

9 A.D.3d 689, 780 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9752

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

DecidedJuly 15, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 9 A.D.3d 689 (People v. Hanrahan) 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. Hanrahan, 9 A.D.3d 689, 780 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9752 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered April 4, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

Following defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, he was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 10 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. On appeal, defendant contends that given, among other things, his family background, minimal education and minor criminal history, the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. We disagree. Absent an abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence imposed, a sentence that falls within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed (see People v Bell, 290 AD2d 729 [2002]; People v Arquette, 281 AD2d 652 [2001]). Here, a review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion nor any reason to exercise our discretion to reduce the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Hathaway, 260 AD2d 717 [1999]).

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered April 4, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of manslaughter in the first degree.

Following defendant’s plea of guilty to the crime of manslaughter in the first degree, he was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement to a prison term of 10 years, to be followed by five years of postrelease supervision. On appeal, defendant contends that given, among other things, his family background, minimal education and minor criminal history, the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. We disagree. Absent an abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence imposed, a sentence that falls within the permissible statutory range will not be disturbed (see People v Bell, 290 AD2d 729 [2002]; People v Arquette, 281 AD2d 652 [2001]). Here, a review of the record discloses no abuse of discretion nor any reason to exercise our discretion to reduce the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Hathaway, 260 AD2d 717 [1999]).

Crew III, J.P., Carpinello, Mugglin, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

9 A.D.3d 689, 780 N.Y.S.2d 99, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9752, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hanrahan-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack