People v. Pratt

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pratt

174 A.D.2d 408, 572 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8860

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

DecidedJune 13, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 174 A.D.2d 408 (People v. Pratt) 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. Pratt, 174 A.D.2d 408, 572 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Levittan, J.), rendered on May 3, 1989, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 7 to 21 years and 1 Vi to 4 Vi years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. 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 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—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Shirley Levittan, J.), rendered on May 3, 1989, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 7 to 21 years and 1 Vi to 4 Vi years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. 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 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—Murphy, P. J., Carro, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

174 A.D.2d 408, 572 N.Y.S.2d 856, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pratt-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack