People v. Ozman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ozman

108 A.D.2d 762, 484 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43094

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

DecidedFebruary 4, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 108 A.D.2d 762 (People v. Ozman) 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. Ozman, 108 A.D.2d 762, 484 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43094 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judg[763]*763ment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubin, J.), rendered May 28, 1981, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We find that defendant’s contention that his plea should be vacated because he was improperly found to be competent to stand trial after a hearing on his CPL 730.10 (1) motion is without merit (see, People v Francabandera, 33 NY2d 429).

In addition, we conclude that the imposed sentence of 8 to 16 years’ imprisonment was not improper or an abuse of discretion nor is there any basis for us to exercise our discretion by reducing the imposed sentence (see, People v Süitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judg[763]*763ment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Rubin, J.), rendered May 28, 1981, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

We find that defendant’s contention that his plea should be vacated because he was improperly found to be competent to stand trial after a hearing on his CPL 730.10 (1) motion is without merit (see, People v Francabandera, 33 NY2d 429).

In addition, we conclude that the imposed sentence of 8 to 16 years’ imprisonment was not improper or an abuse of discretion nor is there any basis for us to exercise our discretion by reducing the imposed sentence (see, People v Süitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Brown, Niehoff and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

108 A.D.2d 762, 484 N.Y.S.2d 920, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 43094, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ozman-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack