People v. Solock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Solock

50 A.D.3d 1166, 854 N.Y.S.2d 785

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

DecidedApril 3, 2008

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 50 A.D.3d 1166 (People v. Solock) 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. Solock, 50 A.D.3d 1166, 854 N.Y.S.2d 785 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J), rendered May 26, 2006, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree.

Defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with grand larceny in the second degree and falsifying business records in the first degree stemming from evidence that, during the course of her employment with a family business, she stole upwards of $125,000 over a three-year period. Under the terms of a plea agreement, she was to plead guilty to the grand larceny count in satisfaction of the indictment, receive a sentence of 2 to 6 years in prison and pay restitution. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to this crime and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. She now appeals.

We are unpersuaded by the sole contention now before us, namely, that defendant’s agreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. Defendant committed a crime of greed involving the theft of over $125,000 from a family business which entrusted its assets and finances to her. As aptly observed by County Court at sentencing, “[t]he enormity of this theft speaks volumes.” Moreover, when approached by police concerning her conduct, she was not completely forthright about the magnitude of her theft and further attempted to shift blame to her employer for her conduct because she was not paid that well. In view of these facts, as well as the fact that defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement and the sentence was far less than the maximum permitted, we find no abuse of discretion by County Court in its sentence (see e.g. People v Provost, 25 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]; People v Shea, 254 AD2d 512, 513 [1998]). Moreover, while we acknowledge [1167]*1167defendant’s lack of criminal history, we do not find that this factor, or any other factor urged by her, presents extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Provost, supra).

Peters, J.P., Kane, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Carpinello, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Hayden, J), rendered May 26, 2006, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of grand larceny in the second degree.

Defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with grand larceny in the second degree and falsifying business records in the first degree stemming from evidence that, during the course of her employment with a family business, she stole upwards of $125,000 over a three-year period. Under the terms of a plea agreement, she was to plead guilty to the grand larceny count in satisfaction of the indictment, receive a sentence of 2 to 6 years in prison and pay restitution. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to this crime and was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement. She now appeals.

We are unpersuaded by the sole contention now before us, namely, that defendant’s agreed-upon sentence is harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. Defendant committed a crime of greed involving the theft of over $125,000 from a family business which entrusted its assets and finances to her. As aptly observed by County Court at sentencing, “[t]he enormity of this theft speaks volumes.” Moreover, when approached by police concerning her conduct, she was not completely forthright about the magnitude of her theft and further attempted to shift blame to her employer for her conduct because she was not paid that well. In view of these facts, as well as the fact that defendant was sentenced in accordance with the plea agreement and the sentence was far less than the maximum permitted, we find no abuse of discretion by County Court in its sentence (see e.g. People v Provost, 25 AD3d 1016, 1017 [2006], lv denied 6 NY3d 817 [2006]; People v Shea, 254 AD2d 512, 513 [1998]). Moreover, while we acknowledge [1167]*1167defendant’s lack of criminal history, we do not find that this factor, or any other factor urged by her, presents extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Provost, supra).

Peters, J.P., Kane, Kavanagh and Stein, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.3d 1166, 854 N.Y.S.2d 785, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-solock-nyappdiv-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack