People v. Underwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Underwood

119 A.D.2d 778, 501 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55717

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

DecidedApril 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 119 A.D.2d 778 (People v. Underwood) 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. Underwood, 119 A.D.2d 778, 501 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55717 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Sullivan, J.), rendered April 15, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The sentence imposed upon the defendant, to wit, 11 to 22 years in prison on the robbery charge and one year on the criminal possession of stolen property charge, to run concurrently with each other, was within the statutory limits (see, Penal Law § 70.04 [3]; § 160.15), and was an appropriate exercise of discretion. We therefore decline to disturb the sentence imposed.

[779]*779We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, 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 (Sullivan, J.), rendered April 15, 1983, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Judgment affirmed.

The sentence imposed upon the defendant, to wit, 11 to 22 years in prison on the robbery charge and one year on the criminal possession of stolen property charge, to run concurrently with each other, was within the statutory limits (see, Penal Law § 70.04 [3]; § 160.15), and was an appropriate exercise of discretion. We therefore decline to disturb the sentence imposed.

[779]*779We have considered the defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Lazer, J. P., Niehoff, Kooper and Spatt, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

119 A.D.2d 778, 501 N.Y.S.2d 184, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 55717, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-underwood-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack