People v. Prince

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Prince

196 A.D.2d 917, 603 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8696

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

DecidedSeptember 23, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 917 (People v. Prince) 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. Prince, 196 A.D.2d 917, 603 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8696 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered June 8, 1992, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

On this appeal defendant contends that the sentence of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment imposed upon her conviction is harsh and excessive and that County Court abused its discretion in failing to waive the mandatory surcharge. Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to one count of criminal possession of a [918]*918controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of a two-count indictment and pleaded guilty knowing that she would receive the sentence ultimately imposed by County Court, which was substantially less than the harshest possible sentence. Given these facts, as well as defendant’s criminal record, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v Revels, 191 AD2d 905; People v Mackey, 136 AD2d 780, Iv denied 71 NY2d 899). We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant’s request to waive the mandatory surcharge (see, People v Fulton, 138 AD2d 514, Iv denied 71 NY2d 1027).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher, Jr., J.), rendered June 8, 1992, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

On this appeal defendant contends that the sentence of 2 to 6 years’ imprisonment imposed upon her conviction is harsh and excessive and that County Court abused its discretion in failing to waive the mandatory surcharge. Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to one count of criminal possession of a [918]*918controlled substance in the third degree in satisfaction of a two-count indictment and pleaded guilty knowing that she would receive the sentence ultimately imposed by County Court, which was substantially less than the harshest possible sentence. Given these facts, as well as defendant’s criminal record, we find no basis to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v Revels, 191 AD2d 905; People v Mackey, 136 AD2d 780, Iv denied 71 NY2d 899). We also find no abuse of discretion in the denial of defendant’s request to waive the mandatory surcharge (see, People v Fulton, 138 AD2d 514, Iv denied 71 NY2d 1027).

Mikoll, J. P., Yesawich Jr., Crew III and Casey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 917, 603 N.Y.S.2d 778, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8696, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-prince-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack