People v. Santiago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santiago

81 A.D.2d 560, 441 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11036

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

DecidedApril 28, 1981

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 81 A.D.2d 560 (People v. Santiago) 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. Santiago, 81 A.D.2d 560, 441 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11036 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered -March 20, 1979, unanimously affirmed. The defendant was convicted on his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree and was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain to an indeterminate prison term of from 4 to 12 years. The conviction arose from a gunpoint robbery by the defendant and a confederate of a grocery store in Manhattan. Thereafter, he was arrested for four armed robberies of other grocery stores in The Bronx, and after having been identified, he was arrested for the instant offense. On appeal, the appellant-defendant contended that his sentence was excessive. In asking for a reduction of the sentence (which would not affect the terms appellant is serving concurrently with this one for his other crimes), his counsel states as follows: “this Court’s action will signal to him its confidence in his rehabilitative potential and motivate his continued good behavior. It will also provide a judgment favorable to appellant on which the parole board may rely when considering appellant for release. Exec. Law § 259-a (1); § 259-i (2) (c). Thus this Court should substantially reduce appellant’s sentence.” By this statement counsel for the defendant-appellant would impute to this court a high degree of naiveté and credulity. If a more worthy argument cannot be made, then counsel should seek to withdraw. (See Anders v California, 386 US 730; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833.) We cannot countenance such irresponsible contentions on appeal. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sullivan, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered -March 20, 1979, unanimously affirmed. The defendant was convicted on his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree and was sentenced pursuant to a plea bargain to an indeterminate prison term of from 4 to 12 years. The conviction arose from a gunpoint robbery by the defendant and a confederate of a grocery store in Manhattan. Thereafter, he was arrested for four armed robberies of other grocery stores in The Bronx, and after having been identified, he was arrested for the instant offense. On appeal, the appellant-defendant contended that his sentence was excessive. In asking for a reduction of the sentence (which would not affect the terms appellant is serving concurrently with this one for his other crimes), his counsel states as follows: “this Court’s action will signal to him its confidence in his rehabilitative potential and motivate his continued good behavior. It will also provide a judgment favorable to appellant on which the parole board may rely when considering appellant for release. Exec. Law § 259-a (1); § 259-i (2) (c). Thus this Court should substantially reduce appellant’s sentence.” By this statement counsel for the defendant-appellant would impute to this court a high degree of naiveté and credulity. If a more worthy argument cannot be made, then counsel should seek to withdraw. (See Anders v California, 386 US 730; People v Saunders, 52 AD2d 833.) We cannot countenance such irresponsible contentions on appeal. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Birns, Sullivan, Silverman and Bloom, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

81 A.D.2d 560, 441 N.Y.S.2d 384, 1981 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11036, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-santiago-nyappdiv-1981.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack