People v. Mashaw

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mashaw

50 A.D.2d 988, 376 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11958

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 50 A.D.2d 988 (People v. Mashaw) 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. Mashaw, 50 A.D.2d 988, 376 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11958 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered April 4, 1975, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled [989]*989substance in the sixth degree. Defendant’s sole contention on this appeal is that the indeterminate term of imprisonment imposed upon him, with a minimum period of one year and a maximum term of three years, is an unduly harsh or excessive sentence. We do not agree. The conviction was the evident product of plea bargaining and was obtained after more serious charges were reduced. Each of the factors stressed by defendant was made known to the trial court before sentencing was pronounced. They were balanced, if not outweighed, by other factors indicating the propriety of a sentence to a period of imprisonment. Under the circumstances presented, we will not interfere with the exercise of discretion properly vested in the trial court to impose such a sentence. Judgment affirmed. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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 St. Lawrence County, rendered April 4, 1975, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled [989]*989substance in the sixth degree. Defendant’s sole contention on this appeal is that the indeterminate term of imprisonment imposed upon him, with a minimum period of one year and a maximum term of three years, is an unduly harsh or excessive sentence. We do not agree. The conviction was the evident product of plea bargaining and was obtained after more serious charges were reduced. Each of the factors stressed by defendant was made known to the trial court before sentencing was pronounced. They were balanced, if not outweighed, by other factors indicating the propriety of a sentence to a period of imprisonment. Under the circumstances presented, we will not interfere with the exercise of discretion properly vested in the trial court to impose such a sentence. Judgment affirmed. Sweeney, J. P., Kane, Main, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 988, 376 N.Y.S.2d 693, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11958, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mashaw-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack