People v. Corso

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Corso

46 A.D.2d 863, 361 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3459

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

DecidedDecember 5, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 863 (People v. Corso) 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. Corso, 46 A.D.2d 863, 361 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3459 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 27, 1972, denying, without a hearing, defendant’s motion to be resentenced, nunc pro tunc, unanimously reversed, on the law, and said motion granted. Defendant was never advised of his right to appeal the judgment rendered June 30, 1953, convicting him, on his guilty plea, of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to State prison for a term of not less than 15 nor more than 25 years. Since defendant asserts that he would have claimed excessiveness of sentence on appeal had he been properly advised, he has presented a viable claim warranting appropriate relief. (People v. Lynn, 28 N Y 2d 196; People v. Coleman, 30 N Y 2d 582.) However, in view of the fact that severity of sentence is defendant’s principal plaint, his presence at the resentence granted hereby is not required. (People V. Clifford, 38 A D 2d 952.) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Lane, JJ.

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

Order, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on April 27, 1972, denying, without a hearing, defendant’s motion to be resentenced, nunc pro tunc, unanimously reversed, on the law, and said motion granted. Defendant was never advised of his right to appeal the judgment rendered June 30, 1953, convicting him, on his guilty plea, of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to State prison for a term of not less than 15 nor more than 25 years. Since defendant asserts that he would have claimed excessiveness of sentence on appeal had he been properly advised, he has presented a viable claim warranting appropriate relief. (People v. Lynn, 28 N Y 2d 196; People v. Coleman, 30 N Y 2d 582.) However, in view of the fact that severity of sentence is defendant’s principal plaint, his presence at the resentence granted hereby is not required. (People V. Clifford, 38 A D 2d 952.) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Murphy, Lupiano and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 863, 361 N.Y.S.2d 671, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3459, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-corso-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack