People v. Rich

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rich

47 A.D.3d 1129, 849 N.Y.S.2d 183

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

DecidedJanuary 24, 2008

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.3d 1129 (People v. Rich) 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. Rich, 47 A.D.3d 1129, 849 N.Y.S.2d 183 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered June 27, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

We previously withheld our decision in this appeal after rejecting an Anders brief, assigning new counsel and identifying at least one issue of arguable merit related to the severity of the sentence (40 AD3d 1308 [2007]). On resubmission, defendant’s essential contention on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive.

Turning to the merits of that issue, our review of the record reveals neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Hoffler, 41 AD3d 891, 893 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 962 [2007]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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 Ulster County (Bruhn, J.), rendered June 27, 2003, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the second degree, petit larceny, criminal mischief in the third degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

We previously withheld our decision in this appeal after rejecting an Anders brief, assigning new counsel and identifying at least one issue of arguable merit related to the severity of the sentence (40 AD3d 1308 [2007]). On resubmission, defendant’s essential contention on appeal is that his sentence is harsh and excessive.

Turning to the merits of that issue, our review of the record reveals neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of defendant’s sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Hoffler, 41 AD3d 891, 893 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 962 [2007]). Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.3d 1129, 849 N.Y.S.2d 183, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rich-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack