People v. Joseph

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Joseph

110 A.D.2d 716, 488 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48616

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

DecidedApril 8, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 716 (People v. Joseph) 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. Joseph, 110 A.D.2d 716, 488 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48616 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

[717]*717It was not error for the Trial Judge to refuse defendant’s request to charge the lesser included offense of criminal trespass. No reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding that defendant committed such lesser offense but did not commit the greater (People v Blim, 63 NY2d 718; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61; People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364).

Defendant’s challenge to the excessiveness of the sentence imposed has been considered and has been found to be without merit. There has been no abuse of discretion by the sentencing court. Defendant’s extensive criminal history clearly justified the sentence imposed and, therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion and reduce the sentence in the interest of justice (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Titone, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

[717]*717It was not error for the Trial Judge to refuse defendant’s request to charge the lesser included offense of criminal trespass. No reasonable view of the evidence would support a finding that defendant committed such lesser offense but did not commit the greater (People v Blim, 63 NY2d 718; People v Glover, 57 NY2d 61; People v Scarborough, 49 NY2d 364).

Defendant’s challenge to the excessiveness of the sentence imposed has been considered and has been found to be without merit. There has been no abuse of discretion by the sentencing court. Defendant’s extensive criminal history clearly justified the sentence imposed and, therefore, we decline to exercise our discretion and reduce the sentence in the interest of justice (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Titone, J. P., Bracken, Rubin and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 716, 488 N.Y.S.2d 29, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48616, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-joseph-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack