People v. Munoz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Munoz

282 A.D.2d 775, 722 N.Y.S.2d 439, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3644

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

DecidedApril 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 282 A.D.2d 775 (People v. Munoz) 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. Munoz, 282 A.D.2d 775, 722 N.Y.S.2d 439, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3644 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered October 8, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of 3V2 to 7 years in prison. Defendant appeals, contending that his prison sentence is harsh and excessive. We disagree. In light of defendant’s extensive criminal history and the fact that he was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement, we conclude that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive and should not be disturbed (see, People v Williams, 238 AD2d 633, lv denied 90 NY2d 866).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered October 8, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of 3V2 to 7 years in prison. Defendant appeals, contending that his prison sentence is harsh and excessive. We disagree. In light of defendant’s extensive criminal history and the fact that he was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement, we conclude that the sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive and should not be disturbed (see, People v Williams, 238 AD2d 633, lv denied 90 NY2d 866).

Mercure, J. P., Crew III, Peters, Mugglin and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

282 A.D.2d 775, 722 N.Y.S.2d 439, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3644, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-munoz-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack