People v. Tasber

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tasber

273 A.D.2d 542, 709 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6646

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

DecidedJune 15, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 273 A.D.2d 542 (People v. Tasber) 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. Tasber, 273 A.D.2d 542, 709 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6646 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a [543]*543judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered January 22, 1999, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of conspiracy in the second degree.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy in the second degree. In doing so, defendant admitted attempting to hire a “hit man” to murder her husband. Sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 9 years in prison she now argues on appeal that this sentence was harsh and excessive, principally due to her troubled childhood, emotional problems and concern over her ill child’s health and well-being. A sentence within permissible statutory ranges will not be disturbed unless extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 NY2d 872). Here, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court given, inter alia, the serious nature and circumstances of the subject crime (see, id.). Notably, the mitigating or extenuating circumstances defendant references on appeal were before County Court at the time of defendant’s sentencing (see, People v Johnstone, 184 AD2d 929, lv denied 80 NY2d 905).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, 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 [543]*543judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered January 22, 1999, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of conspiracy in the second degree.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea bargain, defendant pleaded guilty to a single count of conspiracy in the second degree. In doing so, defendant admitted attempting to hire a “hit man” to murder her husband. Sentenced to a prison term of 3 to 9 years in prison she now argues on appeal that this sentence was harsh and excessive, principally due to her troubled childhood, emotional problems and concern over her ill child’s health and well-being. A sentence within permissible statutory ranges will not be disturbed unless extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v Dolphy, 257 AD2d 681, 685, lv denied 93 NY2d 872). Here, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court given, inter alia, the serious nature and circumstances of the subject crime (see, id.). Notably, the mitigating or extenuating circumstances defendant references on appeal were before County Court at the time of defendant’s sentencing (see, People v Johnstone, 184 AD2d 929, lv denied 80 NY2d 905).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Peters and Carpinello, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

273 A.D.2d 542, 709 N.Y.S.2d 242, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6646, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tasber-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack