People v. Anthony B.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Anthony B.

57 A.D.2d 931, 394 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12187

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

DecidedMay 23, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 57 A.D.2d 931 (People v. Anthony B.) 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 v. Anthony B., 57 A.D.2d 931, 394 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12187 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a resem tence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed May 30, 1975 (the date on the clerk’s extract is July 1, 1975), upon his conviction of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty. The appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant’s application for youthful offender treatment. Resentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that defendant’s application for youthful offender treatment is granted. As so modified, resentence affirmed. Under all of the circumstances of this case, including defendant’s age and lack of a previous felony conviction, he should not have received the sentence imposed at Criminal Term. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a resem tence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed May 30, 1975 (the date on the clerk’s extract is July 1, 1975), upon his conviction of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty. The appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant’s application for youthful offender treatment. Resentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by providing that defendant’s application for youthful offender treatment is granted. As so modified, resentence affirmed. Under all of the circumstances of this case, including defendant’s age and lack of a previous felony conviction, he should not have received the sentence imposed at Criminal Term. Martuscello, J. P., Latham, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 931, 394 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12187, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-anthony-b-nyappdiv-1977.