People v. Crafton

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Crafton

291 N.E.2d 722, 31 N.Y.2d 828, 339 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 960

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedNovember 30, 1972

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 291 N.E.2d 722 (People v. Crafton) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Crafton, 291 N.E.2d 722, 31 N.Y.2d 828, 339 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 960 (N.Y. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Memorandum. In each case the order appealed from should be affirmed. In People v. Crafton, the report of the medical examination conducted pursuant to the requirements of section 207 of the Mental Hygiene Law was before the court and addiction admitted by the defendant when the prison sentence for which he had bargained was imposed; and arraignment and hearing in literal compliance with section 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law were, therefore, unnecessary. The record in People v. Marañes — differing significantly from that in Crafton — does not satisfactorily demonstrate that either the fact of addiction or the history of the defendant’s addiction was established before, and considered by, the sentencing court.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur in memorandum.

In each case: Order affirmed.

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

Memorandum. In each case the order appealed from should be affirmed. In People v. Crafton, the report of the medical examination conducted pursuant to the requirements of section 207 of the Mental Hygiene Law was before the court and addiction admitted by the defendant when the prison sentence for which he had bargained was imposed; and arraignment and hearing in literal compliance with section 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law were, therefore, unnecessary. The record in People v. Marañes — differing significantly from that in Crafton — does not satisfactorily demonstrate that either the fact of addiction or the history of the defendant’s addiction was established before, and considered by, the sentencing court.

Chief Judge Fuld and Judges Burke, Scileppi, Bergan, Breitel, Jasen and Gibson concur in memorandum.

In each case: Order affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

291 N.E.2d 722, 31 N.Y.2d 828, 339 N.Y.S.2d 678, 1972 N.Y. LEXIS 960, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-crafton-ny-1972.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack