People v. Ray

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ray

137 A.D.3d 463, 25 N.Y.S.3d 882

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

DecidedMarch 3, 2016

Docket405 827/13

StatusPublished

This text of 137 A.D.3d 463 (People v. Ray) 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. Ray, 137 A.D.3d 463, 25 N.Y.S.3d 882 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered February 20, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools (two counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the burglary conviction to a term of 2 to 4 years, resulting in a new aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, and otherwise affirmed.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. We do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of the right to appeal.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered February 20, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree, criminal mischief in the third degree and possession of burglar’s tools (two counts), and sentencing him to an aggregate term of 2V2 to 5 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentence on the burglary conviction to a term of 2 to 4 years, resulting in a new aggregate term of 2 to 4 years, and otherwise affirmed.

We find the sentence excessive to the extent indicated. We do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of the right to appeal.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Sweeny, Manzanet-Daniels and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

137 A.D.3d 463, 25 N.Y.S.3d 882, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ray-nyappdiv-2016.