People v. Jamerson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jamerson

162 A.D.2d 201, 556 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7086

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

DecidedJune 12, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 162 A.D.2d 201 (People v. Jamerson) 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. Jamerson, 162 A.D.2d 201, 556 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7086 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered November 27, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or excessive. 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 with his plea bargain and, "[hjaving 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—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jerome Hornblass, J.), rendered November 27, 1987, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15) and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from 5 to 10 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or excessive. 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 with his plea bargain and, "[hjaving 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—Ross, J. P., Milonas, Rosenberger, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

162 A.D.2d 201, 556 N.Y.S.2d 494, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7086, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jamerson-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack