People v. Brock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brock

48 A.D.2d 790, 369 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9973

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

DecidedJune 12, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 48 A.D.2d 790 (People v. Brock) 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. Brock, 48 A.D.2d 790, 369 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9973 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered December 5, 1972, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder and possession of a weapon as a felony, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not exceeding 25 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, insofar as it imposes sentence and the case remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for resentence; and otherwise affirmed. On the record before us, there was an effective waiver of defendant’s right to be present during the trial and at sentencing. However, it appears that sentence was pronounced before receipt of the probation report required by the statute. (CPL 390.20, subd 1.) Accordingly, we remand for resentence only, in accordance with the statutory mandate. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered December 5, 1972, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of attempted murder and possession of a weapon as a felony, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not exceeding 25 years, unanimously reversed, on the law, insofar as it imposes sentence and the case remitted to Supreme Court, Bronx County, for resentence; and otherwise affirmed. On the record before us, there was an effective waiver of defendant’s right to be present during the trial and at sentencing. However, it appears that sentence was pronounced before receipt of the probation report required by the statute. (CPL 390.20, subd 1.) Accordingly, we remand for resentence only, in accordance with the statutory mandate. Concur—Markewich, J. P., Murphy, Lupiano, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 790, 369 N.Y.S.2d 154, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9973, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brock-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack