People v. Jaramillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jaramillo

133 A.D.2d 848, 520 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51901

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

DecidedOctober 26, 1987

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.2d 848 (People v. Jaramillo) 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. Jaramillo, 133 A.D.2d 848, 520 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51901 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), both rendered March 4, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree under indictment No. 1545/84, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under indictment No. 1570/84, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The record on appeal does not support the defendant’s contention that the sentencing court declined to impose lesser sentences due to a mistaken belief that it lacked authority to impose sentences more lenient than the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendations, which recommendations were the terms of the plea bargain. Here, the nature and scope of the defendant’s criminal acts, the pertinent facts appearing in the record, and the results of the presentence investigation furnish a sound basis for the court’s imposition of sentence in accord with the prosecutor’s recommendations (see, People v Gittelson, 25 AD2d 265, 272, affd 18 NY2d 427). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), both rendered March 4, 1985, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree under indictment No. 1545/84, and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree under indictment No. 1570/84, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The record on appeal does not support the defendant’s contention that the sentencing court declined to impose lesser sentences due to a mistaken belief that it lacked authority to impose sentences more lenient than the prosecutor’s sentencing recommendations, which recommendations were the terms of the plea bargain. Here, the nature and scope of the defendant’s criminal acts, the pertinent facts appearing in the record, and the results of the presentence investigation furnish a sound basis for the court’s imposition of sentence in accord with the prosecutor’s recommendations (see, People v Gittelson, 25 AD2d 265, 272, affd 18 NY2d 427). Mollen, P. J., Bracken, Rubin, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.2d 848, 520 N.Y.S.2d 410, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51901, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jaramillo-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack