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. Crystal A. MILLS, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Madison County (Di Stefano, J.), rendered January 5, 2004, convicting defendant upon her plea of guilty of the crimes of grand larceny in the fourth degree and forgery in the second degree.
Defendant was charged in a six-count indictment with multiple counts of larceny and forgery arising from her fraudulent use of a credit card and checks belonging to a resident of the adult care facility where she worked. She pleaded guilty to grand larceny in the fourth degree and forgery in the second degree in full satisfaction of the indictment. No specific sentence was promised as part of the plea agreement, although County Court agreed that the sentences would be concurrent and would not exceed 1 to 3 years in prison. Defendant was also required to pay restitution. At sentencing, County Court imposed concurrent prison terms of 1 to 3 years. Defendant now appeals.
Notwithstanding the lesser sentence recommended by the presentence report which was adopted by the prosecution and defense counsel, County Court was not bound to impose this sentence. Rather, County Court retained discretion with respect to sentencing (see People v. Rawdon, 296 A.D.2d 599, 599, 744 N.Y.S.2d 573 [2002], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 771, 752 N.Y.S.2d 12, 781 N.E.2d 924 [2002] ) and the only limitation made a part of the plea agreement was that the prison terms run concurrently and not exceed 1 to 3 years. After considering the reprehensible nature of defendant's crimes, involving the exploitation of the elderly, County Court was justified in imposing concurrent 1 to 3-year prison terms. Inasmuch as we find no abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances warranting a reduction of the sentence, we decline to disturb the judgment of conviction (see People v. Jones, 11 A.D.3d 818, 783 N.Y.S.2d 165 [2004]; People v. Morrison, 290 A.D.2d 808, 810, 736 N.Y.S.2d 204 [2002], lv. denied 98 N.Y.2d 653, 745 N.Y.S.2d 512, 772 N.E.2d 615 [2002] ).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: April 07, 2005
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)