People v. Blake

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Blake

39 A.D.2d 587, 331 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4913

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

DecidedApril 17, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 39 A.D.2d 587 (People v. Blake) 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. Blake, 39 A.D.2d 587, 331 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4913 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 29, 1970, which resentenced defendant nunc pro tunc as of January 17, 1962 to a term of imprisonment of from 3 to 10 years, affirmed. The question whether defendant’s maximum release date has been improperly extended by the Department of Correctional Services cannot be raised on this appeal from the judgment of conviction. If the Department of Correctional Services has miscalculated defendant’s jail term, his proper remedy would be an article 78 proceeding directed to that department. We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered June 29, 1970, which resentenced defendant nunc pro tunc as of January 17, 1962 to a term of imprisonment of from 3 to 10 years, affirmed. The question whether defendant’s maximum release date has been improperly extended by the Department of Correctional Services cannot be raised on this appeal from the judgment of conviction. If the Department of Correctional Services has miscalculated defendant’s jail term, his proper remedy would be an article 78 proceeding directed to that department. We have examined defendant’s other contention and find it to be without merit. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction should be affirmed. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 587, 331 N.Y.S.2d 851, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4913, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-blake-nyappdiv-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack