AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. OMAR COLEMAN, appellant. (Ind. No. 7237/96)

DECISION ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Friedman, J.), rendered November 12, 1996, convicting him of attempted assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

As a condition of his plea agreement, the defendant was warned to stay out of trouble pending sentence or the court would impose an enhanced sentence. At sentencing, the court was informed that the defendant had been rearrested and indicted on, inter alia, robbery charges. We reject the defendant's contention that the court impermissibly enhanced his sentence. Since the defendant had been indicted, the court was assured that there was a legitimate basis for the new charges. Thus, the court properly exercised its discretion in imposing an enhanced sentence (see, People v. Outley, 80 N.Y.2d 702, cert denied 519 U.S. 964 ; People v. Maietta, 80 N.Y.2d 702 ; People v. Ruffin, 208 A.D.2d 657 ).

S. MILLER, J.P., THOMPSON, KRAUSMAN, FLORIO, and SCHMIDT, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. COLEMAN
(Nov 1, 1999)