People v. Whiting

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Whiting

191 A.D.2d 846, 594 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2349

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

DecidedMarch 11, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 191 A.D.2d 846 (People v. Whiting) 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. Whiting, 191 A.D.2d 846, 594 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2349 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered April 3, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Defendant’s only contention on this appeal is that the sentence he received of six months’ imprisonment and five [847]*847years’ probation was harsh and excessive. Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to a reduced charge in satisfaction of the indictment. Further, he pleaded guilty knowing that he would receive the sentence ultimately imposed, which is much less than the harshest possible sentence. Under these circumstances we can find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Mackey, 136 AD2d 780, lv denied 71 NY2d 899; People v McManus, 124 AD2d 305).

Weiss, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Mahoney, 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 Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered April 3, 1992, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Defendant’s only contention on this appeal is that the sentence he received of six months’ imprisonment and five [847]*847years’ probation was harsh and excessive. Defendant was allowed to plead guilty to a reduced charge in satisfaction of the indictment. Further, he pleaded guilty knowing that he would receive the sentence ultimately imposed, which is much less than the harshest possible sentence. Under these circumstances we can find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Mackey, 136 AD2d 780, lv denied 71 NY2d 899; People v McManus, 124 AD2d 305).

Weiss, P. J., Yesawich Jr., Levine, Crew III and Mahoney, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

191 A.D.2d 846, 594 N.Y.S.2d 997, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2349, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-whiting-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack