People v. Middleton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Middleton

292 A.D.2d 467, 738 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2531

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

DecidedMarch 11, 2002

StatusPublished

This text of 292 A.D.2d 467 (People v. Middleton) 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. Middleton, 292 A.D.2d 467, 738 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2531 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered December 1, 1999, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The comments of the trial court at sentencing, taken as a whole, were a response to the defendant’s statements that he never intended to hurt anyone, and “reflect the fact that the [468]*468court was taking into consideration the nature of the crime, a legitimate factor in determining an appropriate sentence” (People v James, 216 AD2d 489; see, People v Anderson, 287 AD2d 574).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and H. Miller, 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, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), rendered December 1, 1999, convicting him of manslaughter in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The comments of the trial court at sentencing, taken as a whole, were a response to the defendant’s statements that he never intended to hurt anyone, and “reflect the fact that the [468]*468court was taking into consideration the nature of the crime, a legitimate factor in determining an appropriate sentence” (People v James, 216 AD2d 489; see, People v Anderson, 287 AD2d 574).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review or without merit. Altman, J.P., Krausman, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

292 A.D.2d 467, 738 N.Y.S.2d 882, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2531, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-middleton-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack