From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pedraza

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 8, 1985
485 N.E.2d 237 (N.Y. 1985)

Opinion

Argued September 9, 1985

Decided October 8, 1985

Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Daniel Sullivan, J.

Jonathan H. Oberman and William E. Hellerstein for appellant.

Mario Merola, District Attorney (Michael J. Eng and Billie Manning of counsel), for respondent.


Order affirmed. It is clear from this record that the sentencing court did consider "the nature and circumstances of the crime and * * * the history and character of the defendant" (Penal Law § 70.02 [c] [i]), correctly including whether, in view of defendant's physical condition, a sentence of imprisonment would be "unduly harsh". Thus, it cannot be said that the court failed to exercise its discretion or abused that discretion as a matter of law.

Concur: Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges JASEN, MEYER, SIMONS, KAYE, ALEXANDER and TITONE.


Summaries of

People v. Pedraza

Court of Appeals of the State of New York
Oct 8, 1985
485 N.E.2d 237 (N.Y. 1985)
Case details for

People v. Pedraza

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. ARMANDO PEDRAZA…

Court:Court of Appeals of the State of New York

Date published: Oct 8, 1985

Citations

485 N.E.2d 237 (N.Y. 1985)
485 N.E.2d 237
495 N.Y.S.2d 30

Citing Cases

People v. Wilson

We find similarly unavailing the defendant's contention that the court should have granted his motion for a…

People v. Tweedy

We find unpersuasive the defendant's contention that the sentences he received were harsh and excessive. The…