Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph KEATON, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County (Danaher Jr., J.), rendered May 28, 1996, which resentenced defendant following his conviction of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree.
Defendant was originally sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years and placed on parole supervision following his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree in satisfaction of a two-count indictment. In light of a prior felony conviction, however, defendant was disqualified from participating in the parole supervision program; consequently, the parole supervision provision of defendant's sentence was revoked and he was resentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 2 to 4 years. Defendant now contends that the sentence was harsh and excessive and should be reduced in the interest of justice. We disagree. Defendant pleaded guilty with the understanding that the People would recommend the prison term which was ultimately imposed. Moreover, defendant was permitted to plead to a lesser included offense of the first count of the indictment and received the most lenient sentence allowed by statute (see, Penal Law § 70.06[3][d]; [4][b] ). Under the circumstances presented here, we perceive no reason to disturb the sentence imposed (see, People v. Atkinson, 238 A.D.2d 628, 655 N.Y.S.2d 698, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 854, 661 N.Y.S.2d 181, 683 N.E.2d 1055).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 18, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)