People v. Bostick

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bostick

67 A.D.2d 930, 413 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10695

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1979

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 67 A.D.2d 930 (People v. Bostick) 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. Bostick, 67 A.D.2d 930, 413 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10695 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendants from two [931]*931judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered June 20, 1977, convicting them of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgments affirmed. We note that the commitment orders of these defendants erroneously state that the sentences imposed are to run consecutively with sentences presently being served. The record clearly indicates that the sentences imposed in this matter are to run concurrently with sentences presently being served because of the court’s failure to specify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively (see Penal Law, § 70.25, subd 1, par [a]; cf. North Carolina v Pearce, 395 US 711). The defendants’ other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendants from two [931]*931judgments (one as to each of them) of the Supreme Court, Kings County, both rendered June 20, 1977, convicting them of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the first degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence. Judgments affirmed. We note that the commitment orders of these defendants erroneously state that the sentences imposed are to run consecutively with sentences presently being served. The record clearly indicates that the sentences imposed in this matter are to run concurrently with sentences presently being served because of the court’s failure to specify whether the sentences would run concurrently or consecutively (see Penal Law, § 70.25, subd 1, par [a]; cf. North Carolina v Pearce, 395 US 711). The defendants’ other contentions have been considered and found to be without merit. Damiani, J. P., Titone, Margett and Martuscello, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

67 A.D.2d 930, 413 N.Y.S.2d 280, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10695, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bostick-nyappdiv-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack