People v. Zarillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Zarillo

188 A.D.2d 753, 591 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13786

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

DecidedDecember 10, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 188 A.D.2d 753 (People v. Zarillo) 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. Zarillo, 188 A.D.2d 753, 591 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13786 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Feldstein, J.), rendered May 29, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Defendant’s only contention on this appeal is that his sentence of three concurrent prison terms of 3 to 9 years was harsh and excessive. Defendant pleaded guilty knowing that the sentence ultimately imposed was the most lenient allowed under the terms of the plea arrangement. Given this fact, and the fact that the sentence imposed is less than the harshest possible, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Maye, 143 AD2d 483, lv denied 73 NY2d 788; People v Smith, 141 AD2d 988).

[754]*754Yesawich Jr., J. P., Levine, Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, ¿i., 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 Schenectady County (Feldstein, J.), rendered May 29, 1991, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fourth degree.

Defendant’s only contention on this appeal is that his sentence of three concurrent prison terms of 3 to 9 years was harsh and excessive. Defendant pleaded guilty knowing that the sentence ultimately imposed was the most lenient allowed under the terms of the plea arrangement. Given this fact, and the fact that the sentence imposed is less than the harshest possible, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed by County Court (see, People v Maye, 143 AD2d 483, lv denied 73 NY2d 788; People v Smith, 141 AD2d 988).

[754]*754Yesawich Jr., J. P., Levine, Crew III, Mahoney and Harvey, ¿i., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

188 A.D.2d 753, 591 N.Y.S.2d 812, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13786, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-zarillo-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack