People v. Brovender

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Brovender

39 A.D.2d 587, 332 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914

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

DecidedApril 17, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 39 A.D.2d 587 (People v. Brovender) 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. Brovender, 39 A.D.2d 587, 332 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 1, 1971, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the sixth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a term of one year. Judgment modified, in the interests of justice, by changing the sentence to probation for a period of three years. As so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, defendant’s otherwise untarnished record, his efforts at rehabilitation while on bail, and the sentence of probation given to a codefendant, indicate that imprisonment is not warranted in this case. Defendant should accordingly have been sentenced to a three-year period of probation. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered October 1, 1971, convicting him of criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the sixth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a term of one year. Judgment modified, in the interests of justice, by changing the sentence to probation for a period of three years. As so modified, judgment affirmed. In our opinion, defendant’s otherwise untarnished record, his efforts at rehabilitation while on bail, and the sentence of probation given to a codefendant, indicate that imprisonment is not warranted in this case. Defendant should accordingly have been sentenced to a three-year period of probation. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Latham, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

39 A.D.2d 587, 332 N.Y.S.2d 132, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-brovender-nyappdiv-1972.