People v. James E.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. James E.

206 A.D.2d 570, 615 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7214

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 206 A.D.2d 570 (People v. James E.) 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. James E., 206 A.D.2d 570, 615 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7214 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered July 13, 1993, which sentenced defendant upon his adjudication as a youthful offender.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of burglary in the third degree and attempted robbery in the second degree. He was subsequently adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to concurrent terms of 1 to 4 years’ imprisonment. Defendant’s only contention on this appeal is that the sentences imposed are harsh and excessive. Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to two crimes in satisfaction of a four-count indictment. In addition, the sentences imposed were not the harshest possible. Given these circumstances, we find no basis to disturb the sentences imposed by County Court.

Mercure, J. P., White, Casey, Weiss 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 St. Lawrence County (Nicandri, J.), rendered July 13, 1993, which sentenced defendant upon his adjudication as a youthful offender.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crimes of burglary in the third degree and attempted robbery in the second degree. He was subsequently adjudicated a youthful offender and sentenced to concurrent terms of 1 to 4 years’ imprisonment. Defendant’s only contention on this appeal is that the sentences imposed are harsh and excessive. Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to two crimes in satisfaction of a four-count indictment. In addition, the sentences imposed were not the harshest possible. Given these circumstances, we find no basis to disturb the sentences imposed by County Court.

Mercure, J. P., White, Casey, Weiss and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 570, 615 N.Y.S.2d 1015, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7214, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-james-e-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack