People v. Rodriguez

179 A.D.2d 789
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 21, 1992·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

The record indicates that the defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed. Accordingly, he has no basis to [790]*790now complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817). In addition, we decline to reduce it in the interests of justice (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). However, directing restitution was improper under the circumstances of this case and that direction is vacated (see, People v Rowe, 75 NY2d 948, affg 152 AD2d 907). We note that Penal Law § 60.27 has since been amended, effective November 1, 1991, to add a new subdivision authorizing restitution to law enforcement agencies to cover their expenditures of funds used in the purchase of drugs as part of investigations leading to convictions (see, L 1991, ch 545). Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Sullivan, Eiber and Ritter, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Rodriguez, 179 A.D.2d 789 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

179 A.D.2d 789 (People v. Rodriguez) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Sanchez
182 A.D.2d 724 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1992)