People v. Pickard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pickard

216 A.D.2d 333, 627 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5964

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

DecidedJune 5, 1995

StatusPublished

This text of 216 A.D.2d 333 (People v. Pickard) 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. Pickard, 216 A.D.2d 333, 627 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5964 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), imposed December 1, 1994, upon her conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, the sentence being five years of probation, with 200 hours of community service and 90 days imprisonment running concurrently with the term of probation, as a condition thereof.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the 90-day term of imprisonment imposed as a concurrent condition of the defendant’s probation; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed, and the matter is remitted for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant’s waiver of her right to appeal is unenforceable (see, People v Leach, 203 AD2d 484). In our opinion, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, O’Brien, Pizzuto 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 her motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Rockland County (Meehan, J.), imposed December 1, 1994, upon her conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, the sentence being five years of probation, with 200 hours of community service and 90 days imprisonment running concurrently with the term of probation, as a condition thereof.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the 90-day term of imprisonment imposed as a concurrent condition of the defendant’s probation; as so modified, the sentence is affirmed, and the matter is remitted for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (5).

The defendant’s waiver of her right to appeal is unenforceable (see, People v Leach, 203 AD2d 484). In our opinion, the sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated. Mangano, P. J., Bracken, O’Brien, Pizzuto and Goldstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

216 A.D.2d 333, 627 N.Y.S.2d 988, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5964, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pickard-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack