Summary
In Delgado, the Court of Appeals, and the Appellate Division before it, affirmed three separate judgments where each defendant was sentenced, as here, as a second felony offender upon being convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.
Summary of this case from People v. KordishOpinion
Decided June 4, 1992
Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, Fred W. Eggert, J., John A.K. Bradley, J., Joseph Mazur, J. Tamara Detloff and Ira Mickenberg for appellant in the first above-entitled case.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx County (Eve E. Miller of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled case.
Caroline Rule and Ira Mickenberg for appellant in the second above-entitled case.
Robert M. Morgenthau, District Attorney, New York County (Hilary Hassler of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled case.
Natalie Rea and Philip L. Weinstein for appellant in the third above-entitled case.
Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney, Bronx County (Y. Gail Goode of counsel), for respondent in the third above-entitled case.
MEMORANDUM.
In each case, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
An intermediate appellate court has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances, even though the sentence may be within the permissible statutory range (CPL 470.15 [b]; People v Thompson, 60 N.Y.2d 513, 519). This sentence-review power may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court. Contrary to defendants' assertions, the Appellate Division did not misapprehend its power in these cases. We read the Appellate Division's statements that the sentencing courts did not abuse their discretion to mean that the Appellate Division did not find the sentences unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances.
Defendants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved or without merit.
Chief Judge WACHTLER and Judges SIMONS, KAYE, TITONE, HANCOCK, JR., and BELLACOSA concur.
In each case: On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 N.Y.CRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.