People v. Pineda

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pineda

159 A.D.2d 216, 552 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2186

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

DecidedMarch 1, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 159 A.D.2d 216 (People v. Pineda) 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. Pineda, 159 A.D.2d 216, 552 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2186 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Snyder, J.), rendered July 28, 1987 and January 27, 1989, respectively, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from five years to life for the narcotics conviction and from IV2 to 4ti years for the weapons conviction, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, among other things, the [217]*217crime 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 within statutory guidelines. "Having 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—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Snyder, J.), rendered July 28, 1987 and January 27, 1989, respectively, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from five years to life for the narcotics conviction and from IV2 to 4ti years for the weapons conviction, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, among other things, the [217]*217crime 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 within statutory guidelines. "Having 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—Kupferman, J. P., Ross, Kassal, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

159 A.D.2d 216, 552 N.Y.S.2d 21, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2186, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pineda-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack