People v. Saez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Saez

81 A.D.2d 841, 438 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11514

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

DecidedMay 4, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 841 (People v. Saez) 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. Saez, 81 A.D.2d 841, 438 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11514 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed March 8, 1979, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a prison term of from four years [842]*842to life. Sentence affirmed. The plea and sentence imposed were the product of negotiations understood and assented to by the defendant, represented by counsel and for which he bargained after terminating his trial upon an indictment charging a more serious offense. There is no showing in this record that the court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence (see People v Ackerman, 61 AD2d 878). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed March 8, 1979, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a prison term of from four years [842]*842to life. Sentence affirmed. The plea and sentence imposed were the product of negotiations understood and assented to by the defendant, represented by counsel and for which he bargained after terminating his trial upon an indictment charging a more serious offense. There is no showing in this record that the court abused its discretion in imposing the sentence (see People v Ackerman, 61 AD2d 878). Damiani, J. P., Gibbons, Gulotta and Thompson, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 841, 438 N.Y.S.2d 846, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11514, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-saez-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack