People v. Lawson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lawson

260 A.D.2d 863, 690 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4212

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

DecidedApril 22, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 260 A.D.2d 863 (People v. Lawson) 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. Lawson, 260 A.D.2d 863, 690 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4212 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), rendered April 6, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the second degree in satisfaction of a three-count superior court information and in exchange for the dismissal of other pending burglary charges. The only commitment defendant received from County Court was to set a ceiling for the sentence of 4 to 8 years in prison. The court ultimately sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 3V2 to 7 years in prison. Defendant now argues that this sentence was harsh and excessive because the District Attorney recommended a lesser sentence, a contention we cannot endorse given the information in the record. Notably, where a sentence is within permissible statutory ranges, it shall not be disturbed unless the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681). Here, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s imposition of the sentence, which was consistent with the relevant statutory requirements, less than the harshest sentence available and within the parameters set by the court. Furthermore, upon our review of the record, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed in the interest of justice (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Graffeo, 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 Otsego County (Coccoma, J.), rendered April 6, 1998, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of burglary in the second degree in satisfaction of a three-count superior court information and in exchange for the dismissal of other pending burglary charges. The only commitment defendant received from County Court was to set a ceiling for the sentence of 4 to 8 years in prison. The court ultimately sentenced defendant to an indeterminate term of 3V2 to 7 years in prison. Defendant now argues that this sentence was harsh and excessive because the District Attorney recommended a lesser sentence, a contention we cannot endorse given the information in the record. Notably, where a sentence is within permissible statutory ranges, it shall not be disturbed unless the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681). Here, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court’s imposition of the sentence, which was consistent with the relevant statutory requirements, less than the harshest sentence available and within the parameters set by the court. Furthermore, upon our review of the record, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed in the interest of justice (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Graffeo, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

260 A.D.2d 863, 690 N.Y.S.2d 138, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4212, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lawson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack