People v. Carillo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Carillo

46 A.D.2d 618, 360 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3955

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

DecidedOctober 15, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 618 (People v. Carillo) 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. Carillo, 46 A.D.2d 618, 360 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3955 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on September 11, 1973, convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery in the second degree and grand lárceny in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of not more than 10 and not more than four years respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing the conviction for grand larceny and dismissing such count of the indictment and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Under the facts of this case, the finding of guilt on the greater count of robbery in the second degree requires dismissal of the “inclusory concurrent count ” of grand larceny third degree. (CPL 300.30, subd. 4; GPL 300.40, subd. 3, par. [b].) Dismissal of the grand larceny count, however, does not affect the validity of the robbery conviction (People v. Pyles, 44 A D 2d 784). Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Tilzer, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on September 11, 1973, convicting defendant of the crimes of robbery in the second degree and grand lárceny in the third degree and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment of not more than 10 and not more than four years respectively, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing the conviction for grand larceny and dismissing such count of the indictment and, as so modified, the judgment is affirmed. Under the facts of this case, the finding of guilt on the greater count of robbery in the second degree requires dismissal of the “inclusory concurrent count ” of grand larceny third degree. (CPL 300.30, subd. 4; GPL 300.40, subd. 3, par. [b].) Dismissal of the grand larceny count, however, does not affect the validity of the robbery conviction (People v. Pyles, 44 A D 2d 784). Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Tilzer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 618, 360 N.Y.S.2d 1, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3955, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-carillo-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack