People v. La France

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. La France

171 A.D.2d 904, 566 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2745

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

DecidedMarch 7, 1991

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 171 A.D.2d 904 (People v. La France) 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. La France, 171 A.D.2d 904, 566 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2745 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered April 23, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant alleges that, had there not been inaccurate information in the presentence report, County Court would have imposed a more lenient sentence. First, prior to sentencing, defense counsel had the opportunity to review the presentence report and he neither requested an adjournment based upon the contents of the report nor did he make any effort to correct it. Second, the alleged discrepancies in the presentence report relate only to the previous sentences actually served by defendant and not to the sentences actually imposed, and it was to the latter that County Court made reference when it sentenced defendant to one year in County Jail upon his plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated as a misdemeanor in full satisfaction of an indictment charging, among other things, at least two felonies. Under the circumstances, coupled with defendant’s criminal record and the fact that, as County Court noted, more lenient sentences have had no effect on defendant, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion [905]*905in imposing sentence (see, People v Brown, 160 AD2d 1037, 1038, Iv denied 76 NY2d 785; People v Jennette, 128 AD2d 955, 956, Iv denied 69 NY2d 951).

Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

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 Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered April 23, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of driving while intoxicated.

Defendant alleges that, had there not been inaccurate information in the presentence report, County Court would have imposed a more lenient sentence. First, prior to sentencing, defense counsel had the opportunity to review the presentence report and he neither requested an adjournment based upon the contents of the report nor did he make any effort to correct it. Second, the alleged discrepancies in the presentence report relate only to the previous sentences actually served by defendant and not to the sentences actually imposed, and it was to the latter that County Court made reference when it sentenced defendant to one year in County Jail upon his plea of guilty to driving while intoxicated as a misdemeanor in full satisfaction of an indictment charging, among other things, at least two felonies. Under the circumstances, coupled with defendant’s criminal record and the fact that, as County Court noted, more lenient sentences have had no effect on defendant, it cannot be said that County Court abused its discretion [905]*905in imposing sentence (see, People v Brown, 160 AD2d 1037, 1038, Iv denied 76 NY2d 785; People v Jennette, 128 AD2d 955, 956, Iv denied 69 NY2d 951).

Judgment affirmed. Weiss, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Mercure, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 A.D.2d 904, 566 N.Y.S.2d 773, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2745, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-la-france-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack