People v. Miller

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Miller

51 A.D.2d 611, 377 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10934

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

DecidedJanuary 15, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 611 (People v. Miller) 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. Miller, 51 A.D.2d 611, 377 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10934 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Cortland County, rendered April 25, 1975, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree and sentencing her to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of up to four years. Defendant contends that her sentence was excessive. The sentencing court had before it a presentence investigation report and was aware of defendant’s prior involvement with bad check charges which had resulted in two prior misdemeanor convictions. The sentence imposed was within the permissible limits under section 70.00 of the Penal Law and we find no abuse of discretion. Defendant also contends that a resentencing procedure should be had in view of allegedly prejudicial remarks by the Assistant District Attorney at the time of sentencing. We find this contention to be without merit. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Koreman and Main, 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 Cortland County, rendered April 25, 1975, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of the crime of grand larceny in the third degree and sentencing her to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of up to four years. Defendant contends that her sentence was excessive. The sentencing court had before it a presentence investigation report and was aware of defendant’s prior involvement with bad check charges which had resulted in two prior misdemeanor convictions. The sentence imposed was within the permissible limits under section 70.00 of the Penal Law and we find no abuse of discretion. Defendant also contends that a resentencing procedure should be had in view of allegedly prejudicial remarks by the Assistant District Attorney at the time of sentencing. We find this contention to be without merit. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P. J., Greenblott, Kane, Koreman and Main, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 611, 377 N.Y.S.2d 801, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10934, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-miller-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack