People v. Worrell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Worrell

110 A.D.2d 733, 488 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48638

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

DecidedApril 8, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 110 A.D.2d 733 (People v. Worrell) 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. Worrell, 110 A.D.2d 733, 488 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter in the second degree, admitting that he recklessly caused the death of his infant son by beating him around the head and body. Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in imposing the promised sentence of 3 to 9 years for this heinous crime, and we discern no justification for exercising our authority to reduce the sentence in the interest of justice (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We have carefully considered the other issues asserted by defendant in his pro se supplementary brief and find either that they have not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589), or that they simply cannot be resolved on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction because they are premised upon matters not contained in the record (see, People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852). Upon this record we find no basis for a reversal of the judgment appealed from. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of manslaughter in the second degree, admitting that he recklessly caused the death of his infant son by beating him around the head and body. Criminal Term did not abuse its discretion in imposing the promised sentence of 3 to 9 years for this heinous crime, and we discern no justification for exercising our authority to reduce the sentence in the interest of justice (see, People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

We have carefully considered the other issues asserted by defendant in his pro se supplementary brief and find either that they have not been preserved for appellate review (see, People v Pellegrino, 60 NY2d 636; People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589), or that they simply cannot be resolved on a direct appeal from the judgment of conviction because they are premised upon matters not contained in the record (see, People v Brown, 45 NY2d 852). Upon this record we find no basis for a reversal of the judgment appealed from. Lazer, J. P., Gibbons, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

110 A.D.2d 733, 488 N.Y.S.2d 200, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-worrell-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack