From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Henao

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 1989
149 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

April 10, 1989

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (McInerney, J.).


Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Upon our review of the record, we conclude that the sentence imposed did not constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of constitutional proscriptions (NY Const, art I, § 5; US Const 8th Amend). Absent exceptional circumstances, a sentence that is within the statutorily permissible range does not constitute cruel and unusual punishment (see, People v. Jones, 39 N.Y.2d 694; People v. Medina, 140 A.D.2d 549; People v. Albano, 124 A.D.2d 739, 740, lv denied 69 N.Y.2d 824). No such exceptional circumstances exist at bar. The sentence imposed was only six months more than the minimum permissible term for a class A-II felony offense (Penal Law § 70.00 [a] [ii]; [2] [a]). Moreover, during the change of plea proceeding the court advised the defendant that the sentence would be no greater than four years' to life imprisonment. The sentence imposed, therefore, was the result of a negotiated plea bargain which substantially reduced the defendant's sentencing exposure and reflects a careful consideration of the defendant's background and the circumstances of the crime charged. Thompson, J.P., Kunzeman, Eiber, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Henao

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 10, 1989
149 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Henao

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LUZ EDILIA HENAO…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 10, 1989

Citations

149 A.D.2d 531 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

People v. Ward

We reject defendant's contention that the sentence he received was harsh and excessive. At the time of his…

People v. Smith

However, contrary to defendant's contention, the 20-year aggregate limitation imposed by Penal Law § 70.30…