People v. Sibley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sibley

54 A.D.2d 772, 387 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14450

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

DecidedOctober 7, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 54 A.D.2d 772 (People v. Sibley) 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. Sibley, 54 A.D.2d 772, 387 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of St. Lawrence County, rendered December 8, 1975, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. Defendant was indicted for one count of burglary in the third degree and one count of grand larceny in the second degree. He subsequently entered a plea of guilty to grand larceny in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. Thereafter, on December 8, 1975 he was sentenced as a second felony offender, pursuant to section 70.06 of the Penal Law, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from two to four years. On this appeal defendant’s sole contention is that section 70.06 of the Penal Law deprived him of his right to equal protection of the law by removing from the judiciary the right to consider mitigating circumstances in sentencing and by treating second felony offenders more harshly than first-time felons for the same crime. This court has recently upheld the constitutionality of this same statute against the contention that its minimum sentence requirement constituted a harsh and excessive sentence and thus cruel and unusual punishment (People v Brown, 46 AD2d 255). We stated therein (p 256): "There is a rational basis to impose a heavier penalty on multiple felony offenders and all persons alike are treated equally.” Similarly, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has concluded that this statute was not a denial of equal protection since all second felony offenders as a class are treated the same (People v Butler, 46 AD2d 422). Since all second felony offenders are treated alike, it is clear that defendant’s contention that section 70.06 of the Penal Law deprived him of equal protection of the law is without merit. The judgment, therefore, should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Mahoney, Larkin 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 of St. Lawrence County, rendered December 8, 1975, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree. Defendant was indicted for one count of burglary in the third degree and one count of grand larceny in the second degree. He subsequently entered a plea of guilty to grand larceny in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. Thereafter, on December 8, 1975 he was sentenced as a second felony offender, pursuant to section 70.06 of the Penal Law, to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of from two to four years. On this appeal defendant’s sole contention is that section 70.06 of the Penal Law deprived him of his right to equal protection of the law by removing from the judiciary the right to consider mitigating circumstances in sentencing and by treating second felony offenders more harshly than first-time felons for the same crime. This court has recently upheld the constitutionality of this same statute against the contention that its minimum sentence requirement constituted a harsh and excessive sentence and thus cruel and unusual punishment (People v Brown, 46 AD2d 255). We stated therein (p 256): "There is a rational basis to impose a heavier penalty on multiple felony offenders and all persons alike are treated equally.” Similarly, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, has concluded that this statute was not a denial of equal protection since all second felony offenders as a class are treated the same (People v Butler, 46 AD2d 422). Since all second felony offenders are treated alike, it is clear that defendant’s contention that section 70.06 of the Penal Law deprived him of equal protection of the law is without merit. The judgment, therefore, should be affirmed. Judgment affirmed. Koreman, P. J., Sweeney, Mahoney, Larkin and Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 772, 387 N.Y.S.2d 487, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sibley-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack