People v. Magin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Magin

2017 NY Slip Op 5531, 152 A.D.3d 1184, 54 N.Y.S.3d 916

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

DecidedJuly 7, 2017

Docket706 KA 13-01187

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5531 (People v. Magin) 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. Magin, 2017 NY Slip Op 5531, 152 A.D.3d 1184, 54 N.Y.S.3d 916 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), rendered April 11, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (12 counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of 12 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). County Court sentenced him as a persistent felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 15 years to life.

We reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in sentencing him as a persistent felony offender. We conclude “that defendant’s history and character . . . and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct indicate that extended incarceration and life-time supervision will best serve the public interest” (Penal Law § 70.10 [2]; see People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1470 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 813 [2011]; People v Perry, 19 AD3d 619, 619 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 809 [2005], denied upon reconsideration 5 NY3d 855 [2005]). We therefore further conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present — Smith, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (Vincent M. Dinolfo, J.), rendered April 11, 2013. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (12 counts).

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of 12 counts of criminal possession of a forged instrument in the second degree (Penal Law § 170.25). County Court sentenced him as a persistent felony offender to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 15 years to life.

We reject defendant’s contention that the court abused its discretion in sentencing him as a persistent felony offender. We conclude “that defendant’s history and character . . . and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct indicate that extended incarceration and life-time supervision will best serve the public interest” (Penal Law § 70.10 [2]; see People v Bastian, 83 AD3d 1468, 1470 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 813 [2011]; People v Perry, 19 AD3d 619, 619 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 809 [2005], denied upon reconsideration 5 NY3d 855 [2005]). We therefore further conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Present — Smith, J.P., Lindley, DeJoseph, NeMoyer and Curran, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 5531, 152 A.D.3d 1184, 54 N.Y.S.3d 916, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-magin-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack