People v. Cardillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cardillo

111 A.D.2d 827, 490 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50068

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

DecidedJune 10, 1985

StatusPublished

This text of 111 A.D.2d 827 (People v. Cardillo) 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. Cardillo, 111 A.D.2d 827, 490 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50068 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People, as limited by their motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.), both imposed March 22,1983, upon defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle, upon a jury verdict, the sentences being concurrent definite terms of imprisonment of one year and six months, respectively.

Sentences modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence for criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. As so modified, sentences affirmed and matter remitted to Criminal Term for resentencing in accordance herewith.

After a hearing, Criminal Term adjudicated defendant to be a second felony offender. The defendant was sentenced erroneously to a definite sentence under the felony charge. Therefore, the matter must be remitted for resentencing as a second felony offender in accordance with Penal Law § 70.06 (2).

Parenthetically, we note that the defendant has since been incarcerated on another conviction. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People, as limited by their motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Lodato, J.), both imposed March 22,1983, upon defendant’s convictions of criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree and unauthorized use of a vehicle, upon a jury verdict, the sentences being concurrent definite terms of imprisonment of one year and six months, respectively.

Sentences modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence for criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. As so modified, sentences affirmed and matter remitted to Criminal Term for resentencing in accordance herewith.

After a hearing, Criminal Term adjudicated defendant to be a second felony offender. The defendant was sentenced erroneously to a definite sentence under the felony charge. Therefore, the matter must be remitted for resentencing as a second felony offender in accordance with Penal Law § 70.06 (2).

Parenthetically, we note that the defendant has since been incarcerated on another conviction. Mollen, P. J., Gibbons, Brown and Fiber, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

111 A.D.2d 827, 490 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 50068, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cardillo-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack