People v. Panay

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Panay

157 A.D.2d 556, 551 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 798

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 23, 1990·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered on July 7, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 5 to 15 years for the sale conviction and five years to life for the possession conviction, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or excessive. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and, "[hjaving received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur Murphy, P. J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John Collins, J.), rendered on July 7, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree (Penal Law § 220.18 [1]) and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.39 [1]), and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 5 to 15 years for the sale conviction and five years to life for the possession conviction, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or excessive. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and, "[hjaving received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur Murphy, P. J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

People v. Panay, 157 A.D.2d 556, 551 N.Y.S.2d 774, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 798 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

157 A.D.2d 556 (People v. Panay) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related