People v. McManus

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McManus

124 A.D.2d 305, 508 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61336

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

DecidedOctober 16, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by16 cases

This text of 124 A.D.2d 305 (People v. McManus) 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. McManus, 124 A.D.2d 305, 508 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

In August 1984, defendant was indicted on three counts of the crime of burglary in the second degree. He subsequently escaped from the Broome County Jail, was later apprehended and charged with the crime of escape in the first degree. Defendant originally pleaded guilty to all of the charges against him. Since defendant was a second felony offender, a term of imprisonment was mandated (Penal Law § 70.06 [2]). County Court, however, adjourned sentencing in order to provide defendant with an opportunity to participate in a rehabilitation program. Defendant failed to participate in any rehabilitation programs.

Defendant was subsequently allowed to withdraw his prior guilty plea. He then pleaded guilty to one count of attempted burglary in the second degree and escape in the second degree in full satisfaction of the charges against him. County Court sentenced defendant to consecutive sentences of 2 to 4 years on the burglary charge and IVi to 3 years on the escape charge.

Defendant contends that the sentences imposed should be modified, in the interest of justice, to run concurrently. Initially, we note that the record reveals that defendant was fully informed that the sentences would be imposed to run consecutively (see, People v Quick, 122 AD2d 296). Furthermore, it is well established that sentencing is within the discretion of the sentencing court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances (People v Garcia, 117 AD2d 928, 930; People v Harris, 57 AD2d 663). A review of the record and the presentencing report reveals that no such showing is present here. It certainly would not promote the purposes of justice to allow a defendant who escaped from custody while awaiting disposition of a burglary charge to go unpunished for the second crime.

Judgment affirmed. Main, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

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

In August 1984, defendant was indicted on three counts of the crime of burglary in the second degree. He subsequently escaped from the Broome County Jail, was later apprehended and charged with the crime of escape in the first degree. Defendant originally pleaded guilty to all of the charges against him. Since defendant was a second felony offender, a term of imprisonment was mandated (Penal Law § 70.06 [2]). County Court, however, adjourned sentencing in order to provide defendant with an opportunity to participate in a rehabilitation program. Defendant failed to participate in any rehabilitation programs.

Defendant was subsequently allowed to withdraw his prior guilty plea. He then pleaded guilty to one count of attempted burglary in the second degree and escape in the second degree in full satisfaction of the charges against him. County Court sentenced defendant to consecutive sentences of 2 to 4 years on the burglary charge and IVi to 3 years on the escape charge.

Defendant contends that the sentences imposed should be modified, in the interest of justice, to run concurrently. Initially, we note that the record reveals that defendant was fully informed that the sentences would be imposed to run consecutively (see, People v Quick, 122 AD2d 296). Furthermore, it is well established that sentencing is within the discretion of the sentencing court and will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances (People v Garcia, 117 AD2d 928, 930; People v Harris, 57 AD2d 663). A review of the record and the presentencing report reveals that no such showing is present here. It certainly would not promote the purposes of justice to allow a defendant who escaped from custody while awaiting disposition of a burglary charge to go unpunished for the second crime.

Judgment affirmed. Main, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

124 A.D.2d 305, 508 N.Y.S.2d 282, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 61336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcmanus-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack