People v. Le Cuyer

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Le Cuyer

165 A.D.2d 956, 561 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11447

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 165 A.D.2d 956 (People v. Le Cuyer) 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. Le Cuyer, 165 A.D.2d 956, 561 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11447 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Harris, J.), rendered February 10, 1989, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant argues that the sentence of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of probation was harsh and excessive in light of his successful participation in an alcohol program and a promise of continued employment. Given defendant’s criminal record, which includes three arrests for driving while intoxicated, and despite his efforts toward rehabilitation, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence that was not only within [957]*957the statutory guidelines but one to which he agreed when he pleaded guilty (see, People v Nazarian, 150 AD2d 923, 924, lv denied 74 NY2d 744; People v Spratt, 135 AD2d 983, lv denied 71 NY2d 903).

Judgment affirmed.

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, 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 Albany County (Harris, J.), rendered February 10, 1989, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

Defendant argues that the sentence of 1 to 3 years’ imprisonment imposed upon the revocation of probation was harsh and excessive in light of his successful participation in an alcohol program and a promise of continued employment. Given defendant’s criminal record, which includes three arrests for driving while intoxicated, and despite his efforts toward rehabilitation, we find that County Court did not abuse its discretion in imposing a sentence that was not only within [957]*957the statutory guidelines but one to which he agreed when he pleaded guilty (see, People v Nazarian, 150 AD2d 923, 924, lv denied 74 NY2d 744; People v Spratt, 135 AD2d 983, lv denied 71 NY2d 903).

Judgment affirmed.

Casey, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

165 A.D.2d 956, 561 N.Y.S.2d 845, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11447, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-le-cuyer-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack