From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Graham

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
May 8, 2019
172 A.D.3d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)

Opinion

2017–06325 Ind. No. 6379/16

05-08-2019

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Osmond GRAHAM, Appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant. Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and Peter N. Pearl of counsel), for respondent.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, N.Y. (Leila Hull of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove, Rhea A. Grob, and Peter N. Pearl of counsel), for respondent.

RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P., CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JEFFREY A. COHEN, BETSY BARROS, FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Matthew J. D'Emic, J.), imposed January 9, 2017, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

Considering all of the relevant circumstances of this case, we conclude that the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v. Ayala, 142 A.D.3d 1095, 1095, 37 N.Y.S.3d 712 ; People v. Serrano, 129 A.D.3d 997, 997, 10 N.Y.S.3d 448 ; cf. People v. Cuaran, 261 A.D.2d 169, 170, 689 N.Y.S.2d 392 ).

BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, COHEN, BARROS and CONNOLLY, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Graham

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
May 8, 2019
172 A.D.3d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
Case details for

People v. Graham

Case Details

Full title:The People of the State of New York, respondent, v. Osmond Graham…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department

Date published: May 8, 2019

Citations

172 A.D.3d 902 (N.Y. App. Div. 2019)
2019 N.Y. Slip Op. 3617
97 N.Y.S.3d 870

Citing Cases

People v. Saveljevs

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.Considering all of the relevant circumstances of this case, we conclude…