People v. Rose

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rose

189 A.D.2d 924, 592 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 110

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

DecidedJanuary 7, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 189 A.D.2d 924 (People v. Rose) 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. Rose, 189 A.D.2d 924, 592 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 110 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schuyler County (Callanan, Sr., J.), rendered July 11, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Defendant’s only contention on this appeal is that the i% to 5-year prison sentence he received is harsh and excessive. Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the crime of burglary in the third degree in full satisfaction of a three-count indictment. Further, defendant pleaded guilty knowing that he would receive the sentence imposed by County Court. In light of these circumstances, defendant’s prior criminal record and the fact that he was not sentenced to the harshest possible sentence, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Mackey, 136 AD2d 780, lv denied 71 NY2d 899; People v Du Bray, 76 AD2d 976).

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, 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 Schuyler County (Callanan, Sr., J.), rendered July 11, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

Defendant’s only contention on this appeal is that the i% to 5-year prison sentence he received is harsh and excessive. Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to the crime of burglary in the third degree in full satisfaction of a three-count indictment. Further, defendant pleaded guilty knowing that he would receive the sentence imposed by County Court. In light of these circumstances, defendant’s prior criminal record and the fact that he was not sentenced to the harshest possible sentence, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Mackey, 136 AD2d 780, lv denied 71 NY2d 899; People v Du Bray, 76 AD2d 976).

Weiss, P. J., Levine, Mahoney, Casey and Harvey, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

189 A.D.2d 924, 592 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 110, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rose-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack