You are here: / / DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE DEEMED TOO HARSH BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S...

DEFENDANT’S SENTENCE DEEMED TOO HARSH BASED UPON DEFENDANT’S CRIMINAL HISTORY, THE PLEA DEAL DEFENDANT WAS OFFERED BEFORE TRIAL, AND THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW EVIDENCE REVEALED BY THE TRIAL (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s sentence was unduly harsh based upon his criminal history and the plea deal defendant was offered before trial:

… [T]he 10-year determinate sentence is unduly harsh and severe considering that defendant has no violent crimes on his record and was offered the opportunity to plead guilty to the charges in the indictment in exchange for a prison sentence of five years. It does not appear that any facts were revealed at trial that were unknown to the People or the court at the time the sentence promise was made. Under the circumstances, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice by reducing the sentence on each count to a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years plus three years of postrelease supervision … . People v Green, 2020 NY Slip Op 00765, Fourth Dept 1-31-20

 

You might also like
Duration of Supervised Visits Cannot Be Left Up to Supervising Agency
MANSLAUGHTER FIRST DEGREE IS NOT AN “ARMED FELONY” WITHIN THE MEANING OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW 720.10; COUNTY COURT WAS REQUIRED TO DETERMINE WHETHER DEFENDANT SHOULD BE AFFORDED YOUTHFUL OFFENDER STATUS; MATTER REMITTED (FOURTH DEPT).
Failure to Disclose Witness Was a Paid Informant Required Vacation of Conviction
NO SHOWING A REASONABLE RETURN ON THE PROPERTY WAS NOT POSSIBLE WITH A CONFORMING USE, USE VARIANCE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
THE BURGLARY COUNT CHARGED THAT DEFENDANT ENTERED THE VICTIM’S APARTMENT WITH THE INTENT TO “HOLD A KNIFE TO THE VICTIM’S THROAT;” THE JURY WAS INSTRUCTED ONLY THAT DEFENDANT ENTERED THE APARTMENT WITH THE INTENT TO “COMMIT A CRIME;” DEFENSE COUNSEL WAS INEFFECTIVE FOR FAILING TO REQUEST A JURY INSTRUCTION TAILORED TO MATCH THE CRIME CHARGED IN THE INDICTMENT (FOURTH DEPT).
MOTHER ENTITLED TO A HEARING ON WHETHER A CHANGE IN HER CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANTED A RETURN OF HER CHILDREN; CUSTODY OF THE CHILDREN HAD PREVIOUSLY BEEN AWARDED TO RESPONDENT (GREAT AUNT) (FOURTH DEPT).
COUNTY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE THE INSTALLATION OF A GUARD RAIL WAS PRECEDED BY A DELIBERATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS, SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED UPON QUALIFIED IMMUNITY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED 4TH DEPT.
DRUG-RELATED NEGLECT FINDING NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

UNRESOLVED QUESTIONS OF FACT CONCERNING WHETHER THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WHOLE... THERE SHOULD ONLY BE ONE SORA RISK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING BASED UPON THE SAME...