From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dilone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 6, 1999
261 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)

Opinion

May 6, 1999

Appeal from the County Court of Franklin County (Main, Jr., J.).


The record indicates that defendant arranged, while incarcerated, to sell a quantity of heroin to an undercover agent through a surrogate. Defendant thereafter pleaded guilty to the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of a two-count superior court information. In accepting the plea, County Court made no commitment as to the sentence to be imposed. The court ultimately sentenced defendant as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 3 1/2 to 7 years, to be served consecutively to the sentence he was currently serving. Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that this sentence was harsh and excessive because, inter alia, the District Attorney recommended a lesser sentence.

Notably, where a sentence is within permissible statutory ranges, it shall not be disturbed unless the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v. Dolphy, 257 A.D.2d 681, 685). Here, although defendant received the harshest permissible sentence, we find no abuse of discretion by County Court. Furthermore, upon review of the record, which reflects that defendant has four prior drug-related convictions, we find no reason to disturb the sentence imposed in the interest of justice (see, id.).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Crew III, Spain and Graffeo, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Dilone

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
May 6, 1999
261 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
Case details for

People v. Dilone

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. IVAN DILONE, Appellant

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

Date published: May 6, 1999

Citations

261 A.D.2d 650 (N.Y. App. Div. 1999)
690 N.Y.S.2d 296

Citing Cases

People v. Schultz

We affirm. Notably, where a sentence is within permissible statutory ranges, it shall not be disturbed unless…

People v. Robinson

We affirm. A sentence within permissible statutory ranges will not be disturbed unless extraordinary…