People v. Sexton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sexton

284 A.D.2d 940, 726 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921

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

DecidedJune 8, 2001

StatusPublished

This text of 284 A.D.2d 940 (People v. Sexton) 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. Sexton, 284 A.D.2d 940, 726 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention, that the evidence of physical injury is legally insufficient to support his conviction of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]; see, People v Gray, 86 [941]*941NY2d 10, 19). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Upon our review of the record, however, we conclude that the determinate term of imprisonment of 24 years imposed on the conviction of burglary in the first degree is unduly harsh. Therefore, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]), we modify the judgment by reducing that sentence to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

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

—Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed in accordance with the following Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention, that the evidence of physical injury is legally insufficient to support his conviction of burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [2]; see, People v Gray, 86 [941]*941NY2d 10, 19). We decline to exercise our power to review that contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [a]). Upon our review of the record, however, we conclude that the determinate term of imprisonment of 24 years imposed on the conviction of burglary in the first degree is unduly harsh. Therefore, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15 [6] [b]), we modify the judgment by reducing that sentence to a determinate term of imprisonment of 10 years (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [3] [a]). (Appeal from Judgment of Cattaraugus County Court, Himelein, J. — Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Hurlbutt, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

284 A.D.2d 940, 726 N.Y.S.2d 325, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5921, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sexton-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack