From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 26, 2013
109 A.D.3d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-09-26

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barry SMITH, Defendant–Appellant.

Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Marisa K. Cabrera of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Morrow of counsel), for respondent.


Robert S. Dean, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Marisa K. Cabrera of counsel), for appellant. Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Philip Morrow of counsel), for respondent.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J.), rendered September 12, 2011, as amended January 10, 2012, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the conviction to burglary in the second degree and reducing the prison term to 3 1/2 years, and otherwise affirmed. As the People concede, defendant's conviction and sentence should be modified as indicated for the purpose of effectuating the plea bargain agreed upon by the parties and the court ( see e.g. People v. Colon, 301 A.D.2d 408, 752 N.Y.S.2d 867 [1st Dept. 2003] ). We have considered defendant's remaining arguments and find that they do not warrant any relief except as indicated.

GONZALEZ, P.J., MAZZARELLI, ACOSTA, RENWICK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Smith

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.
Sep 26, 2013
109 A.D.3d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Smith

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Barry SMITH…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Date published: Sep 26, 2013

Citations

109 A.D.3d 752 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 6074
971 N.Y.S.2d 699

Citing Cases

People v. Pereira

Since it cannot be said that no penological purpose would be served by a remand, dismissal is not warranted…