People v. Tuzzio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tuzzio

261 A.D.2d 644, 688 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5609

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

DecidedMay 24, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 261 A.D.2d 644 (People v. Tuzzio) 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. Tuzzio, 261 A.D.2d 644, 688 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5609 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered February 7, 1997, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in sentencing the defendant as a persistent felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.10 [1]). The record reflects that the sentence was appropriate in that “the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct indicate that extended incarceration and life-time supervision will best serve the public interest” (Penal Law § 70.10 [2]; see, CPL 400.20 [11; People v Andre, 232 AD2d 884).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Marrus, J.), rendered February 7, 1997, convicting him of aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree and assault in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in sentencing the defendant as a persistent felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.10 [1]). The record reflects that the sentence was appropriate in that “the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct indicate that extended incarceration and life-time supervision will best serve the public interest” (Penal Law § 70.10 [2]; see, CPL 400.20 [11; People v Andre, 232 AD2d 884).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Sullivan, J. P., Krausman, Florio and Smith, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

261 A.D.2d 644, 688 N.Y.S.2d 913, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5609, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tuzzio-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack