People v. Sherlock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sherlock

51 A.D.2d 835, 380 N.Y.S.2d 93, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11434

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

DecidedFebruary 19, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 835 (People v. Sherlock) 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. Sherlock, 51 A.D.2d 835, 380 N.Y.S.2d 93, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Washington County, rendered February 13, 1975, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of the crimes of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law, § 160.15, subd 2), and attempt to commit murder in the second degree (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd 3). On the record presented in the instant case, it cannot be said that there is a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court in imposing a concurrent sentence of 5 to 15 years on each conviction (People v Dittmar, 41 AD2d 788; People v Caputo, 13 AD2d 861). There are facts and circumstances concerning defendant’s past and conduct which the trial court could and presumably did consider in her favor in determining the sentence. On the other hand, defendant did proceed armed in the company of two others to a tavern with an admitted intention of robbing it or some other establishment and subsequently shot a patron three times from a distance of 10 feet and then robbed a proprietor. We find no basis to disturb the trial court’s determination as to the appropriate sentence. Nor do we find any merit in defendant’s additional contentions. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court, Washington County, rendered February 13, 1975, convicting defendant upon a plea of guilty of the crimes of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law, § 160.15, subd 2), and attempt to commit murder in the second degree (Penal Law, § 125.25, subd 3). On the record presented in the instant case, it cannot be said that there is a clear abuse of discretion by the trial court in imposing a concurrent sentence of 5 to 15 years on each conviction (People v Dittmar, 41 AD2d 788; People v Caputo, 13 AD2d 861). There are facts and circumstances concerning defendant’s past and conduct which the trial court could and presumably did consider in her favor in determining the sentence. On the other hand, defendant did proceed armed in the company of two others to a tavern with an admitted intention of robbing it or some other establishment and subsequently shot a patron three times from a distance of 10 feet and then robbed a proprietor. We find no basis to disturb the trial court’s determination as to the appropriate sentence. Nor do we find any merit in defendant’s additional contentions. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 835, 380 N.Y.S.2d 93, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sherlock-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack