People v. Daniels

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Daniels

47 A.D.2d 821, 366 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9156

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

DecidedMarch 25, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 821 (People v. Daniels) 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. Daniels, 47 A.D.2d 821, 366 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered October 4, 1972, convicting defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree and burglary in the third degree, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing defendant’s conviction on the grand larceny count and dismissing same and, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed. Under the circumstances of this case, the jury could not have found defendant guilty of robbery in the third degree without also finding him guilty of grand larceny in the third degree. Accordingly, the conviction on the robbery count requires a dismissal of the grand larceny count. (CPL 300.40, subd. 3, par. [b]; People v Pyles, 44 AD2d 784.) At the time of sentencing, the court failed to afford defendant or his counsel an opportunity to make a statement. Such failure requires a reversal and a remand for resentencing only. (People v McClain, 35 NY2d 483; People v Lotz, 42 AD2d 900.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Tilzer, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered October 4, 1972, convicting defendant, upon a jury verdict, of robbery in the third degree, grand larceny in the third degree and burglary in the third degree, unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of reversing defendant’s conviction on the grand larceny count and dismissing same and, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed. Under the circumstances of this case, the jury could not have found defendant guilty of robbery in the third degree without also finding him guilty of grand larceny in the third degree. Accordingly, the conviction on the robbery count requires a dismissal of the grand larceny count. (CPL 300.40, subd. 3, par. [b]; People v Pyles, 44 AD2d 784.) At the time of sentencing, the court failed to afford defendant or his counsel an opportunity to make a statement. Such failure requires a reversal and a remand for resentencing only. (People v McClain, 35 NY2d 483; People v Lotz, 42 AD2d 900.) Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Murphy, Tilzer, Lane and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 821, 366 N.Y.S.2d 8, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-daniels-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack