MATTER OF WILCOX v. Dwyer

New York Court of Appeals

MATTER OF WILCOX v. Dwyer

401 N.E.2d 908, 48 N.Y.2d 1003, 425 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2053

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJanuary 8, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 401 N.E.2d 908 (MATTER OF WILCOX v. Dwyer) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

MATTER OF WILCOX v. Dwyer, 401 N.E.2d 908, 48 N.Y.2d 1003, 425 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2053 (N.Y. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition dismissed, without costs. The People may appeal from the sentence (CPL 450.20, subd 4; 450.30, subd 2). On the appeal they may argue that procedures prescribed by statute were not followed at the sentencing (People v Yanicelli, 33 NY2d 621, 40 NY2d 598). That would include a claim that the court improperly denied the People access to the presentencing report by misinterpreting CPL 390.50 (subd 2). In view of the fact that the issue may be raised on direct appeal, it was error for the Appellate Division to have entertained the application for article 78 relief in the nature of prohibition.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

*1005 Judgment reversed, etc.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The judgment of the Appellate Division should be reversed and the petition dismissed, without costs. The People may appeal from the sentence (CPL 450.20, subd 4; 450.30, subd 2). On the appeal they may argue that procedures prescribed by statute were not followed at the sentencing (People v Yanicelli, 33 NY2d 621, 40 NY2d 598). That would include a claim that the court improperly denied the People access to the presentencing report by misinterpreting CPL 390.50 (subd 2). In view of the fact that the issue may be raised on direct appeal, it was error for the Appellate Division to have entertained the application for article 78 relief in the nature of prohibition.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concur in memorandum.

*1005 Judgment reversed, etc.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

401 N.E.2d 908, 48 N.Y.2d 1003, 425 N.Y.S.2d 550, 1980 N.Y. LEXIS 2053, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/matter-of-wilcox-v-dwyer-ny-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack