People v. Mirra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mirra

197 A.D.2d 641, 604 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9738

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 197 A.D.2d 641 (People v. Mirra) 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. Mirra, 197 A.D.2d 641, 604 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Cohen, J.), rendered June 3, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, burglary in the second degree (two counts) and sexual abuse in the first degree (five counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Having pleaded guilty with the understanding that he [642]*642would receive the sentence which was thereafter imposed, the defendant has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Kubik, 186 AD2d 271).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, 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 (Cohen, J.), rendered June 3, 1986, convicting him of burglary in the first degree, burglary in the second degree (two counts) and sexual abuse in the first degree (five counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Having pleaded guilty with the understanding that he [642]*642would receive the sentence which was thereafter imposed, the defendant has no basis to now complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Kubik, 186 AD2d 271).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Thompson, J. P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

197 A.D.2d 641, 604 N.Y.S.2d 767, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mirra-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack