People v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Smith

109 A.D.3d 752, 971 N.Y.S.2d 699

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

DecidedSeptember 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 109 A.D.3d 752 (People v. Smith) 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. Smith, 109 A.D.3d 752, 971 N.Y.S.2d 699 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J), rendered September 12, 2011, as amended January 10, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the conviction to burglary in the second degree and reducing the prison term to 3Vs years, and otherwise affirmed. As the People concede, defendant’s conviction and sentence should be modified as indicated for the purpose of effectuating the plea bargain agreed upon by the parties and the court (see e.g. People v Colon, 301 AD2d 408 [1st Dept 2003]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find that they do not warrant any relief except as indicated. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J), rendered September 12, 2011, as amended January 10, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the conviction to burglary in the second degree and reducing the prison term to 3Vs years, and otherwise affirmed. As the People concede, defendant’s conviction and sentence should be modified as indicated for the purpose of effectuating the plea bargain agreed upon by the parties and the court (see e.g. People v Colon, 301 AD2d 408 [1st Dept 2003]). We have considered defendant’s remaining arguments and find that they do not warrant any relief except as indicated. Concur — Gonzalez, PJ., Mazzarelli, Acosta and Renwick, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

109 A.D.3d 752, 971 N.Y.S.2d 699, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smith-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack