People v. Onderdonk

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Onderdonk

206 A.D.2d 569, 615 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7187

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

DecidedJuly 7, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 206 A.D.2d 569 (People v. Onderdonk) 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. Onderdonk, 206 A.D.2d 569, 615 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered January 25, 1993, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years. On this appeal, defen[570]*570dant’s only contention is that the sentence she received is harsh and excessive. Defendant pleaded guilty in satisfaction of four counts of an indictment knowing that she would receive the sentence ultimately imposed, which is not the harshest possible. Given these facts, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Casey, 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 Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered January 25, 1993, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years. On this appeal, defen[570]*570dant’s only contention is that the sentence she received is harsh and excessive. Defendant pleaded guilty in satisfaction of four counts of an indictment knowing that she would receive the sentence ultimately imposed, which is not the harshest possible. Given these facts, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, Crew III, White and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

206 A.D.2d 569, 615 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-onderdonk-nyappdiv-1994.