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, etc., respondent, v. Robert L. BURBRIDGE, appellant.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from four judgments of the County Court, Orange County (Craig S. Brown, J.), all rendered November 17, 2017, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 187/17, criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds under Indictment No. 190/17, criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 204/17, and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 205/17, upon his pleas of guilty, and sentencing him to determinate terms of imprisonment of 9 years, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of 2 years, on the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment Nos. 204/17 and 205/17, to run concurrently with each other and a sentence imposed on a prior conviction under Indictment No. 451/16, and determinate terms of imprisonment of 3 years, to be followed by a period of postrelease supervision of 2 years, on the convictions of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree under Indictment No. 187/17 and criminal sale of a controlled substance in or near school grounds under Indictment No. 190/17, to run concurrently with each other and consecutively to the sentences imposed on the convictions under Indictment Nos. 451/16, 204/17, and 205/17.
ORDERED that the judgments are modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that the sentences imposed on the convictions under Indictment Nos. 187/17, 190/17, 204/17, and 205/17 shall run concurrently with each other, and concurrently with the sentence imposed on the prior conviction under Indictment No. 451/16; as so modified, the judgments are affirmed.
The sentences imposed were excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
DILLON, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, ZAYAS and WARHIT, JJ., concur.
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.
Docket No: 2017-13450 , 2022-03523, 2022-03524, 2022-03525
Decided: January 25, 2023
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)