People v. Virgilio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Virgilio

106 A.D.2d 516, 484 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21556

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

DecidedDecember 17, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 106 A.D.2d 516 (People v. Virgilio) 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. Virgilio, 106 A.D.2d 516, 484 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21556 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), imposed June 11,1984, upon his conviction of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a jury trial, the sentence being two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years.

Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the terms of imprisonment to two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. As so modified, sentence affirmed.

The sentence is excessive to the extent indicated herein. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Rohl, J.), imposed June 11,1984, upon his conviction of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, after a jury trial, the sentence being two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 2 to 6 years.

Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the terms of imprisonment to two concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. As so modified, sentence affirmed.

The sentence is excessive to the extent indicated herein. Mollen, P. J., Titone, Weinstein and Brown, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

106 A.D.2d 516, 484 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 21556, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-virgilio-nyappdiv-1984.