People v. Szepessy

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Szepessy

302 A.D.2d 753, 754 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1487

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 302 A.D.2d 753 (People v. Szepessy) 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. Szepessy, 302 A.D.2d 753, 754 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1487 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered March 1, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree. Notwithstanding the joint recommendation of the prosecutor and defense counsel that defendant be granted youthful offender status and sentenced to five years’ probation, County Court sentenced defendant as a youthful offender to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals, asserting that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive. The record establishes that the court, having informed defendant that it was not bound by the sentencing recommendation, considered all relevant factors including his abusive upbringing, his [754]*754extensive juvenile history in Family Court, his previous inability to abide by the terms of probation imposed in Family Court and the seriousness of the crime involved. We, accordingly, find no abuse of discretion on the part of County Court and reject defendant’s assertion that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive (see People v Smith, 288 AD2d 693, lv denied 97 NY2d 761; People v Hope, 274 AD2d 673, lv denied 95 NY2d 890).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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 Columbia County (Leaman, J.), rendered March 1, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of robbery in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of robbery in the second degree. Notwithstanding the joint recommendation of the prosecutor and defense counsel that defendant be granted youthful offender status and sentenced to five years’ probation, County Court sentenced defendant as a youthful offender to a prison term of 1 to 3 years. Defendant appeals, asserting that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive. The record establishes that the court, having informed defendant that it was not bound by the sentencing recommendation, considered all relevant factors including his abusive upbringing, his [754]*754extensive juvenile history in Family Court, his previous inability to abide by the terms of probation imposed in Family Court and the seriousness of the crime involved. We, accordingly, find no abuse of discretion on the part of County Court and reject defendant’s assertion that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive (see People v Smith, 288 AD2d 693, lv denied 97 NY2d 761; People v Hope, 274 AD2d 673, lv denied 95 NY2d 890).

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Lahtinen and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

302 A.D.2d 753, 754 N.Y.S.2d 921, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1487, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-szepessy-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack