People v. Hei Yu Chio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hei Yu Chio

162 A.D.2d 142, 559 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6977

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

DecidedJune 7, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 142 (People v. Hei Yu Chio) 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. Hei Yu Chio, 162 A.D.2d 142, 559 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6977 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered on February 8, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from five years to life, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305). Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance wdth his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, Iv denied 72 NY2d 918). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Edward McLaughlin, J.), rendered on February 8, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of from five years to life, is unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305). Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance wdth his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, Iv denied 72 NY2d 918). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Carro, Milonas and Ellerin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 142, 559 N.Y.S.2d 120, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6977, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hei-yu-chio-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack