People v. Lebron

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lebron

303 A.D.2d 204, 755 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2394

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 303 A.D.2d 204 (People v. Lebron) 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. Lebron, 303 A.D.2d 204, 755 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2394 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter Benitez, J.), rendered April 20, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first and second degrees and petit larceny, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of SVs to 25 years and 5 to 15 years, consecutive to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 and 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). The court permitted elicitation of matters that were highly probative of defendant’s credibility and were not unduly prejudicial.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Peter Benitez, J.), rendered April 20, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder in the second degree, assault in the first and second degrees and petit larceny, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of SVs to 25 years and 5 to 15 years, consecutive to concurrent terms of 1 to 3 and 1 year, unanimously affirmed.

The court’s Sandoval ruling balanced the appropriate factors and was a proper exercise of discretion (see People v Hayes, 97 NY2d 203 [2002]; People v Walker, 83 NY2d 455, 458-459 [1994]; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292 [1983]). The court permitted elicitation of matters that were highly probative of defendant’s credibility and were not unduly prejudicial.

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.P., Sullivan, Ellerin, Lerner and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

303 A.D.2d 204, 755 N.Y.S.2d 598, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2394, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lebron-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack