People v. Ashley

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Ashley

13 A.D.2d 839, 216 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10563

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

DecidedMay 31, 1961

StatusPublished

This text of 13 A.D.2d 839 (People v. Ashley) 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. Ashley, 13 A.D.2d 839, 216 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10563 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1961).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant: (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered November 4,1960, convicting him, on his pleas of guilty under two indictments, of attempted forgery in the second degree, and resentencing him to serve consecutive terms of 2% to 5 years on each indictment; and (2) from every intermediate order made in the action. Judgment modified on the law and the facts so as to provide that the sentence of 2% to 5 years on each of the two indictments shall run concurrently, and not consecutively, with credit for the time already served. As so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, under the circumstances here, the imposition of ecnseeutive sentences, rather than concurrent sentences, was excessive and constituted an improvident exercise of discretion (People v. Williams, 6 A D 2d 900, affd. 6 N Y 2d 193; People v. Small, 2 A D 2d 935, affd. 3 N Y 2d 720). We have examined the other alleged errors and find no cause therein for reversal. No separate appeal lies from the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant: (1) from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered November 4,1960, convicting him, on his pleas of guilty under two indictments, of attempted forgery in the second degree, and resentencing him to serve consecutive terms of 2% to 5 years on each indictment; and (2) from every intermediate order made in the action. Judgment modified on the law and the facts so as to provide that the sentence of 2% to 5 years on each of the two indictments shall run concurrently, and not consecutively, with credit for the time already served. As so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, under the circumstances here, the imposition of ecnseeutive sentences, rather than concurrent sentences, was excessive and constituted an improvident exercise of discretion (People v. Williams, 6 A D 2d 900, affd. 6 N Y 2d 193; People v. Small, 2 A D 2d 935, affd. 3 N Y 2d 720). We have examined the other alleged errors and find no cause therein for reversal. No separate appeal lies from the intermediate orders, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Nolan, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.2d 839, 216 N.Y.S.2d 155, 1961 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10563, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ashley-nyappdiv-1961.