People v. Hurley

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Hurley

553 N.E.2d 1017, 75 N.Y.2d 887, 554 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 593

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedMarch 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by158 cases

This text of 553 N.E.2d 1017 (People v. Hurley) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Hurley, 553 N.E.2d 1017, 75 N.Y.2d 887, 554 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 593 (N.Y. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[888]*888The sentence claim now advanced is unpreserved for our review (People v Ruz, 70 NY2d 942, 943; People v Ingram, 67 NY2d 897, 899). Defendant argues that the trial court’s 2-to-4-year sentence improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial. At sentencing, he asserted that the People had earlier offered him a sentence of lVá to 4 years if he pleaded guilty and that he had been advised by his lawyer that he would receive the same sentence if he went to trial. The sentencing court clarified the record by noting that defendant had been offered a reduced sentence if he pleaded guilty or if he waived a jury and was convicted after a bench trial. The defendant and his attorney made no protest or objection as the 2-to-4-year predicate felony offender sentence was imposed, with the sentencing Judge adding this was not being done as a penalty but on all the usual sentencing factors. •

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

[888]*888The sentence claim now advanced is unpreserved for our review (People v Ruz, 70 NY2d 942, 943; People v Ingram, 67 NY2d 897, 899). Defendant argues that the trial court’s 2-to-4-year sentence improperly penalized him for exercising his right to a jury trial. At sentencing, he asserted that the People had earlier offered him a sentence of lVá to 4 years if he pleaded guilty and that he had been advised by his lawyer that he would receive the same sentence if he went to trial. The sentencing court clarified the record by noting that defendant had been offered a reduced sentence if he pleaded guilty or if he waived a jury and was convicted after a bench trial. The defendant and his attorney made no protest or objection as the 2-to-4-year predicate felony offender sentence was imposed, with the sentencing Judge adding this was not being done as a penalty but on all the usual sentencing factors. •

Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Simons, Kaye, Alexander, Titone, Hancock, Jr., and Bellacosa concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

553 N.E.2d 1017, 75 N.Y.2d 887, 554 N.Y.S.2d 469, 1990 N.Y. LEXIS 593, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hurley-ny-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack