People v. Monte

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Monte

80 A.D.2d 864, 439 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10706

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

DecidedMarch 9, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 80 A.D.2d 864 (People v. Monte) 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. Monte, 80 A.D.2d 864, 439 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10706 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from (1) a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed December 12, 1979 as amended by a sentence of the same court imposed January 2, 1980 and (2) an order of the same court dated March 27, 1980 which denied his motion to further modify the sentence. Sentence as amended and order affirmed. We recognize that a sentencing Judge is not bound by any presentence promise made to the prosecutor as to what sentence will ultimately be imposed (see People v Maldonado, 70 AD2d 308; People v Farrar, 74 AD2d 547; People v Melendez, 75 AD2d 794). However, we conclude, after a review of the sentencing minutes that the Judge imposed the sentence because he felt it would be the most appropriate under the circumstances, not because it had been promised during plea negotiations. Hopkins, J.P., Titone, Rabin and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from (1) a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed December 12, 1979 as amended by a sentence of the same court imposed January 2, 1980 and (2) an order of the same court dated March 27, 1980 which denied his motion to further modify the sentence. Sentence as amended and order affirmed. We recognize that a sentencing Judge is not bound by any presentence promise made to the prosecutor as to what sentence will ultimately be imposed (see People v Maldonado, 70 AD2d 308; People v Farrar, 74 AD2d 547; People v Melendez, 75 AD2d 794). However, we conclude, after a review of the sentencing minutes that the Judge imposed the sentence because he felt it would be the most appropriate under the circumstances, not because it had been promised during plea negotiations. Hopkins, J.P., Titone, Rabin and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

80 A.D.2d 864, 439 N.Y.S.2d 627, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10706, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-monte-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack