People v. Misee

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Misee

119 A.D.2d 772, 501 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55707

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

DecidedApril 21, 1986

StatusPublished

This text of 119 A.D.2d 772 (People v. Misee) 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. Misee, 119 A.D.2d 772, 501 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55707 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), rendered January 22, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

In People v Kepple (98 AD2d 783), this court upheld the validity of the 1981 amendment to Penal Law § 140.25 (2), which eliminated the distinction between daytime and nighttime burglary (see also, People v Buyce, 97 AD2d 632). We continue to adhere to this decision and, accordingly, reject the defendant’s contention that the imposition of a mandatory sentence pursuant to this legislative amendment was violative of the 8th Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, 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 County Court, Rockland County (Edelstein, J.), rendered January 22, 1985, convicting him of burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

In People v Kepple (98 AD2d 783), this court upheld the validity of the 1981 amendment to Penal Law § 140.25 (2), which eliminated the distinction between daytime and nighttime burglary (see also, People v Buyce, 97 AD2d 632). We continue to adhere to this decision and, accordingly, reject the defendant’s contention that the imposition of a mandatory sentence pursuant to this legislative amendment was violative of the 8th Amendment proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and find it to be without merit. Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Weinstein, Eiber and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 772, 501 N.Y.S.2d 402, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55707, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-misee-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack