People ex rel. Smith v. Burge

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Smith v. Burge

27 A.D.3d 1156, 811 N.Y.S.2d 844

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

DecidedMarch 17, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 27 A.D.3d 1156 (People ex rel. Smith v. Burge) 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. Smith v. Burge, 27 A.D.3d 1156, 811 N.Y.S.2d 844 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Peter E. Corning, A.J.), entered January 19, 2005 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (1) (a), his sentences should have been deemed to run concurrently. We conclude that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a), petitioner’s most recently imposed sentence was required to run consecutively to the undischarged portion of petitioner’s prior sentence, despite the sentencing court’s failure to address that issue on the record at sentencing. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Green, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment (denominated order) of the Supreme Court, Cayuga County (Peter E. Corning, A.J.), entered January 19, 2005 in a habeas corpus proceeding. The judgment dismissed the petition.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Petitioner commenced this proceeding seeking a writ of habeas corpus on the ground that, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (1) (a), his sentences should have been deemed to run concurrently. We conclude that Supreme Court properly dismissed the petition. Pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (2-a), petitioner’s most recently imposed sentence was required to run consecutively to the undischarged portion of petitioner’s prior sentence, despite the sentencing court’s failure to address that issue on the record at sentencing. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Scudder, Gorski, Martoche and Green, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

27 A.D.3d 1156, 811 N.Y.S.2d 844, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-smith-v-burge-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack