People v. Young

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Young

157 A.D.2d 812, 550 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 687

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

DecidedJanuary 22, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 157 A.D.2d 812 (People v. Young) 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. Young, 157 A.D.2d 812, 550 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 687 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), rendered June 22, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under indictment No. 233/86, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 22, 1987, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 298/82.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant was sentenced under indictment No. 233/86 to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years in connection with his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant was also sentenced under that indictment to one year in prison for the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, to run concurrently with the sentence of 5 to 10 years. These crimes also constituted violations of the conditions of a term of probation which had been imposed upon the defendant’s conviction of the crime of burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 298/82. Consequently, the defendant was resentenced under that indictment to a consecutive indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. The sentences imposed by the court were clearly within statutory limits (see, Penal Law §§ 140.20, 220.39, 220.03, 70.06 [3] [b]; [4] [b]; § 70.00 [2] [d]; [3] [b]; § 70.15 [1] [b]) and were not harsh or excessive.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his letter, which we have treated as a supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from (1) a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Felig, J.), rendered June 22, 1987, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree under indictment No. 233/86, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence, and (2) an amended judgment of the same court, also rendered June 22, 1987, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 298/82.

Ordered that the judgment and the amended judgment are affirmed.

The defendant was sentenced under indictment No. 233/86 to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years in connection with his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree. The defendant was also sentenced under that indictment to one year in prison for the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the seventh degree, to run concurrently with the sentence of 5 to 10 years. These crimes also constituted violations of the conditions of a term of probation which had been imposed upon the defendant’s conviction of the crime of burglary in the third degree under indictment No. 298/82. Consequently, the defendant was resentenced under that indictment to a consecutive indeterminate term of imprisonment of 1 to 3 years. The sentences imposed by the court were clearly within statutory limits (see, Penal Law §§ 140.20, 220.39, 220.03, 70.06 [3] [b]; [4] [b]; § 70.00 [2] [d]; [3] [b]; § 70.15 [1] [b]) and were not harsh or excessive.

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contentions, including those contained in his letter, which we have treated as a supplemental pro se brief, and find them to be without merit. Bracken, J. P., Lawrence, Harwood and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

157 A.D.2d 812, 550 N.Y.S.2d 414, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 687, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-young-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack