People v. Yepes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yepes

155 A.D.2d 383, 547 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15068

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

DecidedNovember 30, 1989

StatusPublished

This text of 155 A.D.2d 383 (People v. Yepes) 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. Yepes, 155 A.D.2d 383, 547 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent T. Quattrochi, J.), rendered on January 8, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing defendant to a prison term of 8 to 16 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., Kupferman, Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.

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

— Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Vincent T. Quattrochi, J.), rendered on January 8, 1988, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentencing defendant to a prison term of 8 to 16 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., Kupferman, Sullivan, Carro and Rosenberger, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

155 A.D.2d 383, 547 N.Y.S.2d 598, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yepes-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack