People v. Moyse

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moyse

161 A.D.2d 181, 555 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4969

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

DecidedMay 3, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 161 A.D.2d 181 (People v. Moyse) 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. Moyse, 161 A.D.2d 181, 555 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4969 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.), rendered on or about April 5, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (three counts) and sentencing defendant to three indeterminate prison terms of from &V2 to 8V2 years to be served concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (Paul Bookson, J.), rendered on or about April 5, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree (three counts) and sentencing defendant to three indeterminate prison terms of from &V2 to 8V2 years to be served concurrently, unanimously affirmed.

Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Rosenberger, Kassal and Smith, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

161 A.D.2d 181, 555 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4969, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moyse-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack