People v. Ubiles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ubiles

59 A.D.3d 572, 873 N.Y.S.2d 660

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

DecidedFebruary 10, 2009

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 59 A.D.3d 572 (People v. Ubiles) 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. Ubiles, 59 A.D.3d 572, 873 N.Y.S.2d 660 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered February 20, 2001, as amended May 31, 2006, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty with the full understanding that he would receive the sentence actually imposed, and, therefore, he has “no basis now to complain that his sentence was excessive” (People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]; see People v Martinez, 286 AD2d 447 [2001]; People v Allen, 269 AD2d 534 [2000]). In any event, under the circumstances of this case the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello, McCarthy and Belen, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Zambelli, J.), rendered February 20, 2001, as amended May 31, 2006, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment, as amended, is affirmed.

The defendant pleaded guilty with the full understanding that he would receive the sentence actually imposed, and, therefore, he has “no basis now to complain that his sentence was excessive” (People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816, 817 [1984]; see People v Martinez, 286 AD2d 447 [2001]; People v Allen, 269 AD2d 534 [2000]). In any event, under the circumstances of this case the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Spolzino, J.P., Ritter, Covello, McCarthy and Belen, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.3d 572, 873 N.Y.S.2d 660, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ubiles-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack