People ex rel. Pickett v. Smith

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Pickett v. Smith

50 A.D.2d 723, 375 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12606

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 6, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 50 A.D.2d 723 (People ex rel. Pickett v. Smith) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People ex rel. Pickett v. Smith, 50 A.D.2d 723, 375 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12606 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Relator was convicted of two counts of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the fourth degree for sales occurring May 23, 1972 and June 2, 1972. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. He charges that since the trial court had denied his pretrial motion to sever the two counts he may not be sentenced to consecutive terms. He raised the same objection at his sentencing, unsuccessfully. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the sales were other than separate and distinct transactions, properly joined for trial under CPL 200.20 (subd 2, par [c]) but for which consecutive sentences could legally be imposed. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming County Court dismissing writ of habeas corpus.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Simons, Mahoney, Goldman and Del Vecchio, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Relator was convicted of two counts of criminally selling a dangerous drug in the fourth degree for sales occurring May 23, 1972 and June 2, 1972. He was sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. He charges that since the trial court had denied his pretrial motion to sever the two counts he may not be sentenced to consecutive terms. He raised the same objection at his sentencing, unsuccessfully. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the sales were other than separate and distinct transactions, properly joined for trial under CPL 200.20 (subd 2, par [c]) but for which consecutive sentences could legally be imposed. (Appeal from judgment of Wyoming County Court dismissing writ of habeas corpus.) Present — Marsh, P. J., Simons, Mahoney, Goldman and Del Vecchio, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

50 A.D.2d 723, 375 N.Y.S.2d 67, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12606, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-pickett-v-smith-nyappdiv-1975.