People v. Hollister

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hollister

52 A.D.2d 959, 382 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12826

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

DecidedMay 6, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 52 A.D.2d 959 (People v. Hollister) 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. Hollister, 52 A.D.2d 959, 382 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12826 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgments of the County Court of Chemung County, both rendered August 12, 1975, convicting defendant, on separate pleas of guilty, of the crime of attempted forgery in the second degree and the crime of burglary in the third degree and imposing two concurrent indeterminate sentences not to exceed three years. Defendant, [960]*960on this appeal, asserts the sentences are unduly harsh and excessive. The concurrent indeterminate sentences are not unduly harsh and excessive and this court will not, under the circumstances present herein, interfere with the discretion of the trial court (People v Caputo, 13 AD2d 861). Judgments affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from judgments of the County Court of Chemung County, both rendered August 12, 1975, convicting defendant, on separate pleas of guilty, of the crime of attempted forgery in the second degree and the crime of burglary in the third degree and imposing two concurrent indeterminate sentences not to exceed three years. Defendant, [960]*960on this appeal, asserts the sentences are unduly harsh and excessive. The concurrent indeterminate sentences are not unduly harsh and excessive and this court will not, under the circumstances present herein, interfere with the discretion of the trial court (People v Caputo, 13 AD2d 861). Judgments affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Mahoney, Main, Larkin and Herlihy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 A.D.2d 959, 382 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12826, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hollister-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack