Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department · 2024 · Criminal Law
Criminal LawSentencingAppellate Reviewcriminal appealsentence not excessivejudgment affirmedFirst DepartmentNew York
Facts
The opinion identifies defendant as Taverial Norman and states that he appealed from a judgment rendered by the Supreme Court, New York County on July 24, 2018. The majority opinion provides no description of the underlying criminal conduct, charges, trial, or plea. The only substantive point stated by the court is that it found the sentence not excessive. The judgment was therefore affirmed.
Issue
Whether the sentence imposed on defendant was excessive on appellate review. More broadly, the question before the court was whether the judgment should be disturbed on the appeal presented.
Rule
Where the Appellate Division, after due deliberation, finds that the sentence is not excessive, it may affirm the judgment. This opinion does not articulate any broader black-letter sentencing test or standard beyond that conclusion.
🔒
See the holding & full analysis
Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.
The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In Manhattan, Devon Price is convicted of a felony and appeals only his sentence, arguing that the prison term is excessive. After hearing argument from both sides, the appellate court states that, upon due deliberation, it finds the sentence not excessive.
Under the majority opinion's rule, what is the proper appellate disposition?
Explanation. The majority opinion states only that after argument and due deliberation, the court found the sentence not excessive and therefore affirmed the judgment. It does not require any broader articulated test, remand, or reversal. (Derived from People v. Norman (n.d.).)