People v. Leino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leino

99 A.D.2d 472, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16650

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

DecidedJanuary 3, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 99 A.D.2d 472 (People v. Leino) 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. Leino, 99 A.D.2d 472, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16650 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered April 5, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 17 years to life. The appeal also brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress statements. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the minimum term of defendant’s sentence to 15 years. As so modified, judgment affirmed. While defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to add two years to defendant’s minimum term of imprisonment as a condition of preserving his right to appeal. We therefore reduce his minimum sentence to 15 years (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Copertino, J.), rendered April 5, 1982, convicting him of murder in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 17 years to life. The appeal also brings up for review the denial, after a hearing, of defendant’s motion to suppress statements. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the minimum term of defendant’s sentence to 15 years. As so modified, judgment affirmed. While defendant’s suppression motion was properly denied, it was an improvident exercise of discretion to add two years to defendant’s minimum term of imprisonment as a condition of preserving his right to appeal. We therefore reduce his minimum sentence to 15 years (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86). Lazer, J. P., Mangano, Bracken and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

99 A.D.2d 472, 470 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 16650, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leino-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack