People v. Quattlebaum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Quattlebaum

273 A.D.2d 98, 710 N.Y.S.2d 526, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621

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

DecidedJune 15, 2000

StatusPublished

This text of 273 A.D.2d 98 (People v. Quattlebaum) 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. Quattlebaum, 273 A.D.2d 98, 710 N.Y.S.2d 526, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment [99]*99of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered July 29, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim, that the court’s imposition of the statutory surcharge at resentencing following the modification of his conviction on appeal (91 NY2d 744) was presumptively vindictive since the surcharge had been waived at the initial sentencing by another Justice, is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that there was no reasonable likelihood that the imposition of the surcharge was the result of vindictiveness (see, People v Young, 94 NY2d 171). Defendant actually received a prison term that was more lenient than the court could have imposed without exceeding the term imposed originally. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

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

Judgment [99]*99of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Antonio Brandveen, J.), rendered July 29, 1998, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of two counts of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s claim, that the court’s imposition of the statutory surcharge at resentencing following the modification of his conviction on appeal (91 NY2d 744) was presumptively vindictive since the surcharge had been waived at the initial sentencing by another Justice, is unpreserved and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would find that there was no reasonable likelihood that the imposition of the surcharge was the result of vindictiveness (see, People v Young, 94 NY2d 171). Defendant actually received a prison term that was more lenient than the court could have imposed without exceeding the term imposed originally. We have considered and rejected defendant’s remaining claims. Concur — Nardelli, J. P., Williams, Wallach, Rubin and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 98, 710 N.Y.S.2d 526, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6621, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-quattlebaum-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack