People v. Machare

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Machare

264 A.D.2d 487, 695 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8837

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

DecidedAugust 23, 1999

StatusPublished

This text of 264 A.D.2d 487 (People v. Machare) 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. Machare, 264 A.D.2d 487, 695 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8837 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered May 9, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the record does not support the defendant’s claim that he was willing to enter a plea to the entire indictment, the trial court properly declined to permit the plea in the absence of the prosecutor’s consent (see, CPL 220.10 [2], [4]).

The defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, cert denied 449 US 1087; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Roman, J.), rendered May 9, 1996, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (three counts) and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Since the record does not support the defendant’s claim that he was willing to enter a plea to the entire indictment, the trial court properly declined to permit the plea in the absence of the prosecutor’s consent (see, CPL 220.10 [2], [4]).

The defendant’s sentence is not excessive (see, People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400, cert denied 449 US 1087; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, P. J., O’Brien, Sullivan and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

264 A.D.2d 487, 695 N.Y.S.2d 112, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8837, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-machare-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack