From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Reep

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 23, 1976
54 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

September 23, 1976


Appeal from judgments of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered February 27, 1975, convicting defendant upon his pleas of guilty of the crimes of burglary in the third degree, escape in the second degree, and burglary in the second degree and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment not to exceed four years, three years and seven years. Defendant entered his guilty pleas to these crimes in full satisfaction of nine charges contained in three separate indictments, and his sole contention on this appeal is that the sentences which he received are harsh and excessive. We disagree. Sentencing rests within the sound discretion of the trial court whose determinations should not be disturbed absent extraordinary circumstances (People v Dittmar, 41 A.D.2d 788; People v Caputo, 13 A.D.2d 861). In this instance it is uncontested that the terms imposed are well within the statutory limits for the crimes involved, and nothing contained in the record would justify our modification thereof. Moreover, in view of these crimes and defendant's past involvement with the law as revealed in the presentence report, there was no abuse of discretion in denying defendant youthful offender status. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J.P., Sweeney, Kane, Main and Herlihy, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Reep

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Third Department
Sep 23, 1976
54 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

People v. Reep

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. WALTER F. REEP…

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

Date published: Sep 23, 1976

Citations

54 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

People v. Mary

Defendant's sole contention on this appeal is that the sentences are harsh and excessive. We do not agree.…

People v. Jordan

The conduct engaged in by defendant in the commission of this crime was of a brutal and vicious character.…