People v. Honigman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Honigman

10 A.D.3d 535, 781 N.Y.S.2d 735, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10902

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

DecidedSeptember 21, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 10 A.D.3d 535 (People v. Honigman) 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. Honigman, 10 A.D.3d 535, 781 N.Y.S.2d 735, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10902 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered January 25, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of enterprise corruption, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the People’s sentencing comments were contrary to the plea agreement is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the People fully complied with their obligations under the terms of the agreement, and that they never made any implied promises with regard to the position they would take at sentencing (see People v Bennett, 307 AD2d 810 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 539 [2003]; see also Santobello v New York, 404 US 257 [1971]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, PJ., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (William Wetzel, J.), rendered January 25, 2002, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of enterprise corruption, and sentencing him to a term of 3 to 9 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim that the People’s sentencing comments were contrary to the plea agreement is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that the People fully complied with their obligations under the terms of the agreement, and that they never made any implied promises with regard to the position they would take at sentencing (see People v Bennett, 307 AD2d 810 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 539 [2003]; see also Santobello v New York, 404 US 257 [1971]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Buckley, PJ., Lerner, Friedman, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

10 A.D.3d 535, 781 N.Y.S.2d 735, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10902, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-honigman-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack