On this appeal, defendant contends, first, that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and excessive and, second, that the imposition of a mandatory surcharge was violative of his constitutional equal protection rights for the reason that he was indigent. The first contention is apparently bottomed on the fact that, in spite of his assurance of complete cooperation in any further related investigation or prosecution, he was not granted his hoped-for sentence of lifetime probation...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
