People v. Bouyea

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bouyea

103 A.D.2d 1017, 478 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19709

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

DecidedJuly 13, 1984

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.2d 1017 (People v. Bouyea) 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. Bouyea, 103 A.D.2d 1017, 478 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19709 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and otherwise judgment affirmed and defendant remanded to Onondaga County Court for resentencing, in accordance with the following memorandum: We find that defendant did not waive his right to appeal (see People v Cox, 71 AD2d 798). The record indicates, however, and the People concede, that the District Attorney failed to comply with CPL 400.21 (subd 2) with respect to defendant’s sentencing. This subdivision provides that whenever it appears that a defendant may have a prior felony conviction, “a statement must be filed by the prosecutor before sentence is imposed setting forth the date and place of each alleged predicate felony conviction.” That was not done nor was there substantial compliance with the section (see People v Gonzales, 54 AD2d 1070). ¶ We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

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

— Judgment, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and otherwise judgment affirmed and defendant remanded to Onondaga County Court for resentencing, in accordance with the following memorandum: We find that defendant did not waive his right to appeal (see People v Cox, 71 AD2d 798). The record indicates, however, and the People concede, that the District Attorney failed to comply with CPL 400.21 (subd 2) with respect to defendant’s sentencing. This subdivision provides that whenever it appears that a defendant may have a prior felony conviction, “a statement must be filed by the prosecutor before sentence is imposed setting forth the date and place of each alleged predicate felony conviction.” That was not done nor was there substantial compliance with the section (see People v Gonzales, 54 AD2d 1070). ¶ We have examined defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J. — burglary, second degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Boomer, O’Donnell and Schnepp, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.2d 1017, 478 N.Y.S.2d 424, 1984 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 19709, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-bouyea-nyappdiv-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack