People v. Tice

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tice

16 A.D.3d 525, 792 N.Y.S.2d 117, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2624

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 14, 2005·Published

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from an amended sentence of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered October 29, 2002, revoking a sentence of probation imposed by the same court upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s amended sentence was part of a negotiated plea agreement. Thus, he has no basis to complain that the amended sentence was excessive (see People v Domin, 13 AD3d 391 [2004]; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296 [2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]). His remaining contention [526] is without merit (see United States v Booker, 543 US —, 125 S Ct 738 [2005]). H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from an amended sentence of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered October 29, 2002, revoking a sentence of probation imposed by the same court upon a finding that he violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s amended sentence was part of a negotiated plea agreement. Thus, he has no basis to complain that the amended sentence was excessive (see People v Domin, 13 AD3d 391 [2004]; People v Fanelli, 8 AD3d 296 [2004]; People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]). His remaining contention [526] is without merit (see United States v Booker, 543 US —, 125 S Ct 738 [2005]). H. Miller, J.P., Adams, Goldstein and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

People v. Tice, 16 A.D.3d 525, 792 N.Y.S.2d 117, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2624 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

16 A.D.3d 525 (People v. Tice) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related