People v. Page

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Page

6 A.D.3d 553, 774 N.Y.S.2d 403

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

DecidedApril 12, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 6 A.D.3d 553 (People v. Page) 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. Page, 6 A.D.3d 553, 774 N.Y.S.2d 403 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered January 14, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts) and robbery in the second degree (eight counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances, the trial court providently exercised its discretion denying the defendant’s request for an expanded identification charge. A detailed identification charge is not necessarily required, and the identification charge, as given, accurately stated the law (see People v Knight, 87 NY2d 873 [1995]).

[554]*554The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations does not demonstrate that he was punished for asserting his right to proceed to trial (see People v Bellilli, 270 AD2d 355 [2000]). Altman, J.P., Florio, Smith and Rivera, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Kowtna, J.), rendered January 14, 2000, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (four counts) and robbery in the second degree (eight counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Under the circumstances, the trial court providently exercised its discretion denying the defendant’s request for an expanded identification charge. A detailed identification charge is not necessarily required, and the identification charge, as given, accurately stated the law (see People v Knight, 87 NY2d 873 [1995]).

[554]*554The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the fact that the sentence imposed after trial was greater than the sentence offered during plea negotiations does not demonstrate that he was punished for asserting his right to proceed to trial (see People v Bellilli, 270 AD2d 355 [2000]). Altman, J.P., Florio, Smith and Rivera, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

6 A.D.3d 553, 774 N.Y.S.2d 403, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-page-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack