People v. Langlois

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Langlois

243 A.D.2d 775, 662 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9720

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 243 A.D.2d 775 (People v. Langlois) 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. Langlois, 243 A.D.2d 775, 662 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9720 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered July 8, 1996, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and was sentenced to 180 days in jail and five years’ probation. Defendant was subsequently charged with and admitted to violating several terms of his probation whereupon County Court revoked his probation and resentenced him to two consecutive prison terms of 2 to 6 years. Defendant now argues that the sentence was harsh and excessive due to the consecutive nature of the prison terms. We disagree. After revoking defendant’s probation, County Court imposed a term of imprisonment that was appropriate for each crime to which defendant pleaded guilty (see, CPL 410.70 [5]; People v Pickett, 189 AD2d 913). Because each crime was a separate and distinct act, imposition of consecutive prison terms by County Court was authorized (see, Penal Law § 70.25). Given defendant’s demonstrated inability to abide by the terms of his probation, his extensive prior involvement with the justice system and the absence of [776]*776extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention, we find no reason to disturb the sentence. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. 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 Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.), rendered July 8, 1996, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant pleaded guilty to two counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree and was sentenced to 180 days in jail and five years’ probation. Defendant was subsequently charged with and admitted to violating several terms of his probation whereupon County Court revoked his probation and resentenced him to two consecutive prison terms of 2 to 6 years. Defendant now argues that the sentence was harsh and excessive due to the consecutive nature of the prison terms. We disagree. After revoking defendant’s probation, County Court imposed a term of imprisonment that was appropriate for each crime to which defendant pleaded guilty (see, CPL 410.70 [5]; People v Pickett, 189 AD2d 913). Because each crime was a separate and distinct act, imposition of consecutive prison terms by County Court was authorized (see, Penal Law § 70.25). Given defendant’s demonstrated inability to abide by the terms of his probation, his extensive prior involvement with the justice system and the absence of [776]*776extraordinary circumstances warranting our intervention, we find no reason to disturb the sentence. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, Crew III, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

243 A.D.2d 775, 662 N.Y.S.2d 936, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9720, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-langlois-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack