People v. Ruise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ruise

131 A.D.3d 1328, 16 N.Y.S.3d 783

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

DecidedSeptember 24, 2015

Docket106867

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1328 (People v. Ruise) 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. Ruise, 131 A.D.3d 1328, 16 N.Y.S.3d 783 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered February 3, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of three years, followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, contending that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive, particularly given his mental health issues. We disagree. Noting defendant’s criminal history and the favorable plea resolution, we find no abuse of discretion by County Court nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the bargained-for sentence (see People v Nixon, *1329 98 AD3d 1169, 1169 [2012]; People v Ross, 45 AD3d 897, 897 [2007]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Lynch and Clark, 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 Chemung County (Hayden, J.), rendered February 3, 2014, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of a four-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender, in accordance with the plea agreement, to a prison term of three years, followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, contending that the sentence imposed was harsh and excessive, particularly given his mental health issues. We disagree. Noting defendant’s criminal history and the favorable plea resolution, we find no abuse of discretion by County Court nor any extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification of the bargained-for sentence (see People v Nixon, *1329 98 AD3d 1169, 1169 [2012]; People v Ross, 45 AD3d 897, 897 [2007]).

Peters, P.J., Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 1328, 16 N.Y.S.3d 783, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ruise-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack