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. John G. JOURNEY, Appellant.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Smith, J.), rendered March 26, 1997, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crimes of rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child.
Following a jury trial, defendant was convicted of one count each of rape in the second degree, sodomy in the second degree and endangering the welfare of a child, all charges stemming from his molestation of a child under the age of 14. Defendant was sentenced to two terms of 21/313 to 7 years in prison on the rape and sodomy convictions, to be served consecutively. He was also sentenced to a one-year jail term for the endangering the welfare of a child conviction. Defendant's sole argument on appeal is that his sentence was harsh and excessive, a contention we cannot endorse. Notably, where a sentence is within permissible statutory ranges, it shall not be disturbed unless the sentencing court abused its discretion or extraordinary circumstances exist warranting a modification (see, People v. Fish, 235 A.D.2d 578, 581, 652 N.Y.S.2d 124, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1092, 660 N.Y.S.2d 386, 682 N.E.2d 987; People v. Parson, 209 A.D.2d 882, 884, 619 N.Y.S.2d 372, lv. denied 84 N.Y.2d 1014, 622 N.Y.S.2d 925, 647 N.E.2d 131). Although defendant received the harshest sentence permitted, the sentence was within the statutory parameters. Moreover, considering defendant's history and the detestable nature of the crimes committed against a young child placed in his care, we find no abuse of the sentencing court's discretion and no extraordinary circumstances warranting a modification in the interest of justice (see, People v. Brown, 251 A.D.2d 694, 696, 674 N.Y.S.2d 149, 151, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 1029, 684 N.Y.S.2d 494, 707 N.E.2d 449; People v. Motter, 235 A.D.2d 582, 589, 653 N.Y.S.2d 378, lv. denied 89 N.Y.2d 1038, 659 N.Y.S.2d 869, 681 N.E.2d 1316).
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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 22, 1999
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)