People ex rel. Walker v. McMann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. Walker v. McMann

33 A.D.2d 639, 305 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054

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

DecidedOctober 23, 1969

StatusPublished

This text of 33 A.D.2d 639 (People ex rel. Walker v. McMann) 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. Walker v. McMann, 33 A.D.2d 639, 305 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1969).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The relator contends, that his sentence was defective in that it did not name the institution in which the sentence was to be served as required by section 2180 of the Penal Law as it existed when relator was sentenced June 8,. 1966. Such a defect is technical and not one of substance and would only entitle relator to a resentencing, not release from imprisonment. However, relator waived his right' to resentencing at the time of the hearing on his petition. The court below in substance informed the relator that the effect of sustaining his contention would be his return to New York County for that purpose. Both the relator and his counsel indicated that they were only interested in his release and not resentence, (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga County Court dismissing writ of habeas corpus.) Present — Goldman, P'. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.

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

Judgment, unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The relator contends, that his sentence was defective in that it did not name the institution in which the sentence was to be served as required by section 2180 of the Penal Law as it existed when relator was sentenced June 8,. 1966. Such a defect is technical and not one of substance and would only entitle relator to a resentencing, not release from imprisonment. However, relator waived his right' to resentencing at the time of the hearing on his petition. The court below in substance informed the relator that the effect of sustaining his contention would be his return to New York County for that purpose. Both the relator and his counsel indicated that they were only interested in his release and not resentence, (Appeal from judgment of Cayuga County Court dismissing writ of habeas corpus.) Present — Goldman, P'. J., Witmer, Gabrielli, Moule and Henry, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

33 A.D.2d 639, 305 N.Y.S.2d 32, 1969 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3054, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-walker-v-mcmann-nyappdiv-1969.