People v. Lipka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lipka

198 A.D.2d 673, 605 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10765

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

DecidedNovember 18, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 198 A.D.2d 673 (People v. Lipka) 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. Lipka, 198 A.D.2d 673, 605 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10765 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeals from two judgments of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered December 20, 1991, convicting defendant upon his pleas of guilty of the crimes of escape in the first degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

We have examined defendant’s argument that his negotiated sentence is unduly harsh and find it to be unpersuasive. The sentence was within statutory guidelines and defendant received a substantial benefit by pleading as he did in satisfaction of two indictments. Because no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances have been presented, affirmance is required.

[674]*674Crew III, J. P., Cardona, White, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

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

—Appeals from two judgments of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered December 20, 1991, convicting defendant upon his pleas of guilty of the crimes of escape in the first degree and criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree.

We have examined defendant’s argument that his negotiated sentence is unduly harsh and find it to be unpersuasive. The sentence was within statutory guidelines and defendant received a substantial benefit by pleading as he did in satisfaction of two indictments. Because no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances have been presented, affirmance is required.

[674]*674Crew III, J. P., Cardona, White, Mahoney and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

198 A.D.2d 673, 605 N.Y.S.2d 961, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10765, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lipka-nyappdiv-1993.