People v. Thompson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Thompson

246 A.D.2d 309, 667 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6

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

DecidedJanuary 6, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 246 A.D.2d 309 (People v. Thompson) 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. Thompson, 246 A.D.2d 309, 667 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County John Byrne, J., at plea; Gerald Sheindlin, J., at sentence), rendered August 9, 1995, convicting defendant of attempted burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to his enhanced sentence are unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. The court properly imposed a sentence greater than that originally promised since defendant violated the conditions of the plea agreement (see, People v Berdecia, 223 AD2d 444, lv denied 88 NY2d 1019; People v Dremeguila, 166 AD2d 196, lv denied 76 NY2d 1020). Furthermore, the sentencing court was entitled to enhance defendant’s sentence without first giving him an opportunity to withdraw his plea (see, People v Murello, 39 NY2d 879). We do [310]*310not perceive the enhancement of the sentence to be an abuse of discretion or the sentence itself to be unduly harsh. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andidas and Colabella, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County John Byrne, J., at plea; Gerald Sheindlin, J., at sentence), rendered August 9, 1995, convicting defendant of attempted burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenges to his enhanced sentence are unpreserved and, in any event, without merit. The court properly imposed a sentence greater than that originally promised since defendant violated the conditions of the plea agreement (see, People v Berdecia, 223 AD2d 444, lv denied 88 NY2d 1019; People v Dremeguila, 166 AD2d 196, lv denied 76 NY2d 1020). Furthermore, the sentencing court was entitled to enhance defendant’s sentence without first giving him an opportunity to withdraw his plea (see, People v Murello, 39 NY2d 879). We do [310]*310not perceive the enhancement of the sentence to be an abuse of discretion or the sentence itself to be unduly harsh. Concur— Milonas, J. P., Mazzarelli, Andidas and Colabella, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

246 A.D.2d 309, 667 N.Y.S.2d 243, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-thompson-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack