People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Torres

280 A.D.2d 499, 719 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1157

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 280 A.D.2d 499 (People v. Torres) 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. Torres, 280 A.D.2d 499, 719 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1157 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the [500]*500defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered May 5, 1999, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment and imposing the maximum sentence, given the brutal and depraved nature of the crimes (see, People v Annette, 262 AD2d 670; People v Granton, 236 AD2d 624; People v Tam Phan, 225 AD2d 715; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for1 appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the [500]*500defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Knipel, J.), rendered May 5, 1999, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree (two counts), upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The trial court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s request for youthful offender treatment and imposing the maximum sentence, given the brutal and depraved nature of the crimes (see, People v Annette, 262 AD2d 670; People v Granton, 236 AD2d 624; People v Tam Phan, 225 AD2d 715; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for1 appellate review and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see, CPL 470.05 [2]). O’Brien, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Luciano, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

280 A.D.2d 499, 719 N.Y.S.2d 897, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1157, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-torres-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack