People v. Janick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Janick

288 A.D.2d 885, 732 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11176

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

DecidedNovember 9, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 288 A.D.2d 885 (People v. Janick) 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. Janick, 288 A.D.2d 885, 732 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence. As part of the plea agreement, defendant unequivocally agreed to a no-arrest condition. Defendant was arrested while awaiting sentencing, and the agreed-upon sentence, an indeterminate term of incarceration of 2 to 4 years, was enhanced to an aggregate sentence of 7V2 to 15 years. At sentencing, defendant denied any involvement in the events -leading to his arrest, and the court properly conducted an inquiry to allow him an opportunity to show that the arrest was without foundation (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713). Based on the record before us, we conclude that there was a “legitimate basis for the arrest” (People v Outley, supra, at 713). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, consecutive sentences are permissible where, as here, defendant committed separate acts of larceny and extortion (see, People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640, 643). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Ark, J. — Grand Larceny, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence. As part of the plea agreement, defendant unequivocally agreed to a no-arrest condition. Defendant was arrested while awaiting sentencing, and the agreed-upon sentence, an indeterminate term of incarceration of 2 to 4 years, was enhanced to an aggregate sentence of 7V2 to 15 years. At sentencing, defendant denied any involvement in the events -leading to his arrest, and the court properly conducted an inquiry to allow him an opportunity to show that the arrest was without foundation (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 713). Based on the record before us, we conclude that there was a “legitimate basis for the arrest” (People v Outley, supra, at 713). Contrary to defendant’s further contention, consecutive sentences are permissible where, as here, defendant committed separate acts of larceny and extortion (see, People v Laureano, 87 NY2d 640, 643). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Ark, J. — Grand Larceny, 3rd Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Hurlbutt, Gorski and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

288 A.D.2d 885, 732 N.Y.S.2d 618, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-janick-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack