People v. Witbeck

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Witbeck

299 A.D.2d 726, 749 N.Y.S.2d 747, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11431

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

DecidedNovember 27, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 299 A.D.2d 726 (People v. Witbeck) 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. Witbeck, 299 A.D.2d 726, 749 N.Y.S.2d 747, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11431 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered June 15, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to a determinate sentence of two years and three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, contending that the three-year postrelease supervision period was harsh and excessive. Where a sentence is within the permissible statutory range, it will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court or the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification thereof (see People v Morris, 275 AD2d 818, lv denied 96 NY2d 737; People v Journey, 260 AD2d 863). Although County Court imposed the maximum postrelease [727]*727supervision period permitted by statute (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2]), our review of the record establishes no basis to disturb the sentence imposed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, 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 June 15, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of sexual abuse in the first degree.

Defendant entered a negotiated plea of guilty to sexual abuse in the first degree and was sentenced to a determinate sentence of two years and three years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, contending that the three-year postrelease supervision period was harsh and excessive. Where a sentence is within the permissible statutory range, it will not be disturbed absent an abuse of discretion by the sentencing court or the existence of extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification thereof (see People v Morris, 275 AD2d 818, lv denied 96 NY2d 737; People v Journey, 260 AD2d 863). Although County Court imposed the maximum postrelease [727]*727supervision period permitted by statute (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2]), our review of the record establishes no basis to disturb the sentence imposed.

Cardona, P.J., Peters, Spain, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

299 A.D.2d 726, 749 N.Y.S.2d 747, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11431, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-witbeck-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack