People v. Ware

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ware

163 A.D.2d 177, 559 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8441

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

DecidedJuly 12, 1990

StatusPublished

This text of 163 A.D.2d 177 (People v. Ware) 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. Ware, 163 A.D.2d 177, 559 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8441 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered on January 6, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree and sentencing defendant as a predicate felony offender to a prison term of from 3 Vi to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jeffrey Atlas, J.), rendered on January 6, 1989, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree and sentencing defendant as a predicate felony offender to a prison term of from 3 Vi to 7 years, unanimously affirmed.

We are unpersuaded that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh or severe. Taking into account, "among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction”, we perceive no abuse of discretion warranting a reduction in sentence. (People v Farrar, 52 NY2d 302, 305.)

Further, defendant was sentenced in accordance with his plea bargain and within statutory guidelines. "Having received the benefit of his bargain, defendant should be bound by its terms.” (People v Felman, 141 AD2d 889, 890, lv denied 72 NY2d 918.) Concur—Murphy, P. J., Kassal, Ellerin, Smith and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

163 A.D.2d 177, 559 N.Y.S.2d 636, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8441, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ware-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack