People v. Diaz

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Diaz

223 A.D.2d 556, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 140

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

DecidedJanuary 8, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 223 A.D.2d 556 (People v. Diaz) 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. Diaz, 223 A.D.2d 556, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 140 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), imposed November 4, 1993, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 6 to 12 years imprisonment, upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the sentence is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing.

Due to the ambiguity in the record as to whether or not the court believed itself to be constrained by Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b) to direct that the sentence on this conviction run consecutively to a sentence imposed upon the defendant’s prior conviction of a weapons possession charge, we remit the matter for resentencing to permit the court to exercise its discretion (see, People v Stone, 150 AD2d 815; People v Sivels, 142 AD2d 617, 618). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Rotker, J.), imposed November 4, 1993, the sentence being an indeterminate term of 6 to 12 years imprisonment, upon his conviction of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the sentence is reversed, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing.

Due to the ambiguity in the record as to whether or not the court believed itself to be constrained by Penal Law § 70.25 (2-b) to direct that the sentence on this conviction run consecutively to a sentence imposed upon the defendant’s prior conviction of a weapons possession charge, we remit the matter for resentencing to permit the court to exercise its discretion (see, People v Stone, 150 AD2d 815; People v Sivels, 142 AD2d 617, 618). Balletta, J. P., Rosenblatt, Pizzuto, Joy and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

223 A.D.2d 556, 636 N.Y.S.2d 1017, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 140, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-diaz-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack