People v. Stanbro

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Stanbro

168 A.D.2d 887, 564 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15748

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

DecidedDecember 27, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 168 A.D.2d 887 (People v. Stanbro) 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. Stanbro, 168 A.D.2d 887, 564 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15748 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered May 2, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of sodomy in the third degree (two counts) and sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts).

Upon his conviction for two counts of sodomy in the third degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree, defendant received four concurrent sentences, the harshest of which is six months in jail with five years’ probation. Claiming that any jail time is harsh and excessive, defendant requests this court to modify his sentence to probation and community service. However, the sentences imposed are not only authorized by law, but they are within the range that County Court promised at the time defendant entered his guilty pleas (see, People v Spratt, 135 AD2d 983, lv denied 71 NY2d 903). Given the nature of the crimes and the circumstances surrounding them, we cannot say that County Court abused its discretion in imposing sentence (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80) or that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v McCalop, 119 AD2d 937, 938).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, 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 Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered May 2, 1990, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of sodomy in the third degree (two counts) and sexual abuse in the third degree (two counts).

Upon his conviction for two counts of sodomy in the third degree and two counts of sexual abuse in the third degree, defendant received four concurrent sentences, the harshest of which is six months in jail with five years’ probation. Claiming that any jail time is harsh and excessive, defendant requests this court to modify his sentence to probation and community service. However, the sentences imposed are not only authorized by law, but they are within the range that County Court promised at the time defendant entered his guilty pleas (see, People v Spratt, 135 AD2d 983, lv denied 71 NY2d 903). Given the nature of the crimes and the circumstances surrounding them, we cannot say that County Court abused its discretion in imposing sentence (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80) or that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v McCalop, 119 AD2d 937, 938).

Judgment affirmed. Casey, J. P., Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., Levine and Harvey, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

168 A.D.2d 887, 564 N.Y.S.2d 560, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15748, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-stanbro-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack