People v. Overton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Overton

210 A.D.2d 354, 620 N.Y.S.2d 273

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

DecidedDecember 12, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 210 A.D.2d 354 (People v. Overton) 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. Overton, 210 A.D.2d 354, 620 N.Y.S.2d 273 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), imposed March 2, 1993, upon his conviction of murder in. the second degree, upon a jury verdict.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

There is absolutely no evidence in the record supporting the defendant’s contention that he was impermissibly penalized for exercising his right to a trial (see, People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400). It is firmly established that sentences imposed after a trial may be more severe than those offered in exchange for a guilty plea (see, People v Clarke, 195 AD2d 569, 571). Here, the record establishes that the court considered the sentencing principles appropriate to the individual case, and that vindictiveness and retaliation played no role in the term of incarceration that was imposed (see, People v Patterson, 106 AD2d 520, 521). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feldman, J.), imposed March 2, 1993, upon his conviction of murder in. the second degree, upon a jury verdict.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

There is absolutely no evidence in the record supporting the defendant’s contention that he was impermissibly penalized for exercising his right to a trial (see, People v Pena, 50 NY2d 400). It is firmly established that sentences imposed after a trial may be more severe than those offered in exchange for a guilty plea (see, People v Clarke, 195 AD2d 569, 571). Here, the record establishes that the court considered the sentencing principles appropriate to the individual case, and that vindictiveness and retaliation played no role in the term of incarceration that was imposed (see, People v Patterson, 106 AD2d 520, 521). Ritter, J. P., Santucci, Friedmann and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

210 A.D.2d 354, 620 N.Y.S.2d 273, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-overton-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack