People v. Van Luc

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Van Luc

222 A.D.2d 1111, 635 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14239

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

DecidedDecember 22, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 222 A.D.2d 1111 (People v. Van Luc) 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. Van Luc, 222 A.D.2d 1111, 635 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14239 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment [1112]*1112unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of two counts of burglary in the first degree, defendant contends that Supreme Court improperly imposed a harsher sentence than that negotiated as part of the plea and sentence agreement when it stated at sentencing that "[i]t is also my intent * * * that you serve the maximum imposed by this Court today and I would be so informing the requisite authorities in that regard”. That contention lacks merit. The court’s statement of its intent is not binding on the State Board of Parole and is not relevant until parole proceedings are commenced (see, People v Cummings, 194 AD2d 994, 995, lv denied 82 NY2d 752; People v Cornielle, 176 AD2d 190, 191, lv denied 79 NY2d 855; see also, People v Tower, 308 NY 123). In any event, defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court acted out of retaliation (see, People v Cummings, supra, at 995; People v Cornielle, supra, at 191). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.— Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

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

—Judgment [1112]*1112unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him of two counts of burglary in the first degree, defendant contends that Supreme Court improperly imposed a harsher sentence than that negotiated as part of the plea and sentence agreement when it stated at sentencing that "[i]t is also my intent * * * that you serve the maximum imposed by this Court today and I would be so informing the requisite authorities in that regard”. That contention lacks merit. The court’s statement of its intent is not binding on the State Board of Parole and is not relevant until parole proceedings are commenced (see, People v Cummings, 194 AD2d 994, 995, lv denied 82 NY2d 752; People v Cornielle, 176 AD2d 190, 191, lv denied 79 NY2d 855; see also, People v Tower, 308 NY 123). In any event, defendant has failed to demonstrate that the court acted out of retaliation (see, People v Cummings, supra, at 995; People v Cornielle, supra, at 191). (Appeal from Judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Affronti, J.— Burglary, 1st Degree.) Present — Pine, J. P., Lawton, Davis and Boehm, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

222 A.D.2d 1111, 635 N.Y.S.2d 901, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14239, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-van-luc-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack