People v. Lovell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lovell

251 A.D.2d 819, 674 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7421

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

DecidedJune 18, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 251 A.D.2d 819 (People v. Lovell) 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. Lovell, 251 A.D.2d 819, 674 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7421 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered December 13, 1996, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Defendant, having waived his right to a jury trial and stipu[820]*820lated to certain facts, was found guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree. Sentenced to a prison term of 2 to 6 years, defendant appeals. We reject defendant’s contention that, because others with more extensive criminal histories have received more lenient sentences, his sentence is harsh and excessive. Defendant was previously convicted of the crime of burglary in the third degree and committed the instant offense one month following his release on parole. Considering this, as well as defendant’s failure to present any evidence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a downward modification of his sentence, we conclude that the sentence imposed by County Court was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Hollenbeck, 234 AD2d 824, lv denied 89 NY2d 986).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Peters and Spain, 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 Chemung County (Castellino, J.), rendered December 13, 1996, convicting defendant following a nonjury trial of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Defendant, having waived his right to a jury trial and stipu[820]*820lated to certain facts, was found guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree. Sentenced to a prison term of 2 to 6 years, defendant appeals. We reject defendant’s contention that, because others with more extensive criminal histories have received more lenient sentences, his sentence is harsh and excessive. Defendant was previously convicted of the crime of burglary in the third degree and committed the instant offense one month following his release on parole. Considering this, as well as defendant’s failure to present any evidence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a downward modification of his sentence, we conclude that the sentence imposed by County Court was neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v Hollenbeck, 234 AD2d 824, lv denied 89 NY2d 986).

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, Peters and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 819, 674 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7421, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lovell-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack