PeoplevGiroux

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 20, 2014
Docket104459
StatusPublished

This text of PeoplevGiroux (PeoplevGiroux) 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
PeoplevGiroux, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Opinion

State of New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division Third Judicial Department Decided and Entered: November 20, 2014 104459 ________________________________

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

STEPHEN GIROUX, Appellant. ________________________________

Calendar Date: October 17, 2014

Before: Stein, J.P., McCarthy, Garry, Lynch and Devine, JJ.

__________

Sandra M. Colatosti, Albany, for appellant.

Andrew J. Wylie, District Attorney, Plattsburgh (Nicholas J. Evanovich of counsel), for respondent.

Garry, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Clinton County (McGill, J.), rendered May 24, 2010, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of bail jumping in the first degree.

Defendant was charged in an indictment with criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. After he failed to appear for trial, a separate indictment was handed up charging him with bail jumping in the first degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to that indictment and, following a jury trial, was convicted of the drug charges (People v Giroux, AD3d [decided herewith]). County Court sentenced him to a prison term of 1a to 4 years on the bail jumping conviction, running -2- 104459

consecutively to the aggregate sentence imposed upon the drug convictions. Defendant now appeals, arguing solely that County Court's direction that the sentences run consecutively was harsh and excessive. As "we find no abuse of the sentencing court's discretion or the existence of any extraordinary circumstance which would warrant our modification of the consecutive sentences" given the circumstances presented in this case, we disagree and affirm (People v Bonilla, 285 AD2d 746, 748 [2001]; see People v DeStefano, 29 AD3d 1030, 1032 [2006], lv denied 7 NY3d 755 [2006]; People v Halm, 256 AD2d 630, 630-631 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 1049 [1999]).

Stein, J.P., McCarthy, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court

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

Related

People v. De Stefano
29 A.D.3d 1030 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Halm
256 A.D.2d 630 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1998)
People v. Bonilla
285 A.D.2d 746 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
PeoplevGiroux, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoplevgiroux-nyappdiv-2014.