From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pailin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 5, 2003
306 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

14108

Decided and Entered: June 5, 2003.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County (Herrick, J.), rendered March 29, 2002, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crime of attempted burglary in the first degree.

Michael C. Ross, Bloomingburg, for appellant.

Paul A. Clyne, District Attorney, Albany (Christopher D. Horn of counsel), for respondent.

Before: Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ.


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Defendant pleaded guilty to the crime of attempted burglary in the first degree in full satisfaction of the charges against her. She was thereafter sentenced, as part of a negotiated plea agreement, to a determinate prison term of eight years, to be followed by four years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals, contending that the sentence imposed by County Court was harsh or excessive. We disagree. A sentence that falls within the permissible statutory ranges will not be disturbed unless it can be shown that the sentencing court abused its discretion or that extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification in the interest of justice (see People v. Witbeck, 299 A.D.2d 726, 727;People v. Bell, 290 A.D.2d 729, 730). No such showing has been made in this case.

Cardona, P.J., Spain, Mugglin, Rose and Kane, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.


Summaries of

People v. Pailin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Jun 5, 2003
306 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Pailin

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LACHESIA PAILIN…

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

Date published: Jun 5, 2003

Citations

306 A.D.2d 558 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 699

Citing Cases

People v. Simmons

Defendant now appeals, arguing solely that the sentence was harsh and excessive. We disagree and affirm. It…

People v. Simmons

Defendant now appeals, arguing solely that the sentence was harsh and excessive. We disagree and affirm. It…