People v. Barrow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Barrow

51 A.D.2d 912, 381 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11579

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

DecidedMarch 4, 1976

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 51 A.D.2d 912 (People v. Barrow) 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. Barrow, 51 A.D.2d 912, 381 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11579 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered January 15, 1975, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of escape in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of three years’ imprisonment, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, the sentence vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing, but in all other respects the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Since defendant was an "eligible youth” at the time his plea was accepted, the court was required to order a pre-sentence investigation before determining "whether or not [he] is a youthful offender.” (CPL 720.20, subd 1.) Nevertheless, the instant record discloses that the court precluded such consideration when it accepted the plea; presumably as part of the plea negotiations. The [913]*913provisions of the statute, however, are mandatory and may neither be ignored nor bargained away. (Cf. People v Billups, 47 AD2d 869.) Concur— Murphy, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered January 15, 1975, convicting defendant, on his plea of guilty, of escape in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of three years’ imprisonment, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, the sentence vacated, and the case remanded for resentencing, but in all other respects the judgment of conviction is affirmed. Since defendant was an "eligible youth” at the time his plea was accepted, the court was required to order a pre-sentence investigation before determining "whether or not [he] is a youthful offender.” (CPL 720.20, subd 1.) Nevertheless, the instant record discloses that the court precluded such consideration when it accepted the plea; presumably as part of the plea negotiations. The [913]*913provisions of the statute, however, are mandatory and may neither be ignored nor bargained away. (Cf. People v Billups, 47 AD2d 869.) Concur— Murphy, J. P., Birns, Silverman, Lane and Lynch, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 912, 381 N.Y.S.2d 70, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11579, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-barrow-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack