People v. Sierra

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sierra

147 A.D.2d 664, 538 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2038

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

DecidedFebruary 21, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 147 A.D.2d 664 (People v. Sierra) 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. Sierra, 147 A.D.2d 664, 538 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2038 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered January 19, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed. Under the circumstances, he has no basis now to complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). In any event, the sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive and was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Wexner, J.), rendered January 19, 1988, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that he would receive the sentence which was thereafter actually imposed. Under the circumstances, he has no basis now to complain that his sentence was excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). In any event, the sentence imposed was neither unduly harsh nor excessive and was a proper exercise of the court’s discretion (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Fiber, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

147 A.D.2d 664, 538 N.Y.S.2d 994, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2038, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sierra-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack