People v. Van Vuren

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Van Vuren

212 A.D.2d 917, 623 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1581

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

DecidedFebruary 16, 1995

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 212 A.D.2d 917 (People v. Van Vuren) 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 Vuren, 212 A.D.2d 917, 623 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1995).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered January 24, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

We reject defendant’s claim that his negotiated sentence of 3 Vi to 7 years in prison is harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. Although defendant did receive the harshest permissible sentence as a second felony offender, he nevertheless received a substantial benefit by pleading as he did in satisfaction of a multicount indictment. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Harrigan, J.), rendered January 24, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the third degree.

We reject defendant’s claim that his negotiated sentence of 3 Vi to 7 years in prison is harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. Although defendant did receive the harshest permissible sentence as a second felony offender, he nevertheless received a substantial benefit by pleading as he did in satisfaction of a multicount indictment. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court.

Cardona, P. J., Mikoll, White, Casey and Yesawich Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

212 A.D.2d 917, 623 N.Y.S.2d 170, 1995 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 1581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-van-vuren-nyappdiv-1995.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack