People v. Houghtaling

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Houghtaling

203 A.D.2d 817, 612 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4483

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

DecidedApril 28, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 817 (People v. Houghtaling) 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. Houghtaling, 203 A.D.2d 817, 612 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4483 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered March 8, 1993, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the first degree.

[818]*818We reject defendant’s contention that his sentence of 7 Vi to 15 years in prison for assaulting a man with a tire iron is unduly harsh or excessive. While defendant did receive the harshest sentence possible as a second felony offender, he also obtained a substantial benefit by the People’s agreement not to pursue persistent felony offender status and by pleading as he did in satisfaction of a multicount indictment. In light of the circumstances of this case, defendant’s lengthy criminal history and his documented lack of remorse, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered March 8, 1993, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the first degree.

[818]*818We reject defendant’s contention that his sentence of 7 Vi to 15 years in prison for assaulting a man with a tire iron is unduly harsh or excessive. While defendant did receive the harshest sentence possible as a second felony offender, he also obtained a substantial benefit by the People’s agreement not to pursue persistent felony offender status and by pleading as he did in satisfaction of a multicount indictment. In light of the circumstances of this case, defendant’s lengthy criminal history and his documented lack of remorse, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 817, 612 N.Y.S.2d 971, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4483, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-houghtaling-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack