From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 29, 1998
254 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)

Opinion

October 29, 1998

Appeal from the County Court of Ulster County (Bruhn, J.).


In full satisfaction of a seven-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of assault in the first degree with the understanding that he would be sentenced to a prison term of 2 1/4 to 4 1/2 years and would not be afforded youthful offender status. He now appeals, contending that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive and that County Court abused its discretion in refusing to adjudicate him a youthful offender. Notwithstanding defendant's lack of prior criminal convictions, given the serious nature of the instant, crime wherein defendant gravely injured three individuals in a motor vehicle accident caused by defendant's intoxication and excessive speed, we find no abuse of discretion in County Court's refusal to grant defendant youthful offender status ( see, People v. Diaz, 221 A.D.2d 749, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 921). Finally, we do not find that the sentence imposed was harsh or excessive inasmuch as defendant received the benefit of his plea bargain and received the most lenient sentence allowed by the statute that was in effect at the time he committed the offense ( see, Penal Law § 70.02 former [1] [b].

Cardona, P. J., White, Spain and, Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Martin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Oct 29, 1998
254 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
Case details for

People v. Martin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. RICHARD MARTIN…

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

Date published: Oct 29, 1998

Citations

254 A.D.2d 629 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)
681 N.Y.S.2d 614

Citing Cases

People v. Congdon

In any event, were we to consider defendant's argument, we would reject it as lacking in merit.…