People v. Sable

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sable

170 A.D.2d 282, 565 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1968

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1991

StatusPublished

This text of 170 A.D.2d 282 (People v. Sable) 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. Sable, 170 A.D.2d 282, 565 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1968 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on July 5, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of five counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 12 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered on July 5, 1989, convicting defendant, upon a plea of guilty of five counts of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing defendant to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 12 to 25 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Milonas, Ross, Asch and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

170 A.D.2d 282, 565 N.Y.S.2d 1018, 1991 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1968, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sable-nyappdiv-1991.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack