People v. Jamerson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jamerson

215 A.D.2d 404, 626 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4726

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

DecidedMay 1, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 215 A.D.2d 404 (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, 215 A.D.2d 404, 626 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered October 1, 1993, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 160.15 (4). Contrary to the defendant’s contention about the impossibility of such a plea, we find that it was lawful and properly accepted (see, People v Foster, 19 NY2d 150).

Since the Supreme Court imposed the sentence that was [405]*405promised, the defendant has no basis to complain that his sentence is excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brill, J.), rendered October 1, 1993, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty to attempted robbery in the first degree pursuant to Penal Law § 160.15 (4). Contrary to the defendant’s contention about the impossibility of such a plea, we find that it was lawful and properly accepted (see, People v Foster, 19 NY2d 150).

Since the Supreme Court imposed the sentence that was [405]*405promised, the defendant has no basis to complain that his sentence is excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Bracken, J. P., Rosenblatt, Krausman and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

215 A.D.2d 404, 626 N.Y.S.2d 973, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jamerson-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack