People v. Tavarez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tavarez

235 A.D.2d 278, 652 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 261

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

DecidedJanuary 16, 1997

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 235 A.D.2d 278 (People v. Tavarez) 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. Tavarez, 235 A.D.2d 278, 652 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 261 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1997).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered May 20, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of [279]*279two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years, 5 to 15 years and 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that his sentence should be reduced or he should be resentenced because the presentence report before the court allegedly contained inaccurate and prejudicial statements is unpreserved. It is also without merit since there is no evidence that the court relied on the allegedly inaccurate information when it sentenced defendant precisely as promised.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.), rendered May 20, 1993, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of [279]*279two counts of robbery in the first degree and one count of reckless endangerment in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 5 to 15 years, 5 to 15 years and 1 to 3 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s contention that his sentence should be reduced or he should be resentenced because the presentence report before the court allegedly contained inaccurate and prejudicial statements is unpreserved. It is also without merit since there is no evidence that the court relied on the allegedly inaccurate information when it sentenced defendant precisely as promised.

We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Rosenberger, Rubin, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

235 A.D.2d 278, 652 N.Y.S.2d 519, 1997 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 261, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tavarez-nyappdiv-1997.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack