People v. Drago

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Drago

71 A.D.2d 903, 419 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13156

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

DecidedAugust 13, 1979

StatusPublished

This text of 71 A.D.2d 903 (People v. Drago) 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. Drago, 71 A.D.2d 903, 419 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13156 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County, imposed December 19, 1978, upon his conviction of criminal sale of marihuana in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of four years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to probation for a period of five years. The case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, to fix the conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Hopkins, Damiani and Martuscello, JJ., concur. Mollen, P. J., and Titone, J., dissent and vote to affirm the sentence.

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

—Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County, imposed December 19, 1978, upon his conviction of criminal sale of marihuana in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of four years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to probation for a period of five years. The case is remitted to the County Court, Suffolk County, to fix the conditions of probation and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50 (subd 5). The sentence was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Hopkins, Damiani and Martuscello, JJ., concur. Mollen, P. J., and Titone, J., dissent and vote to affirm the sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

71 A.D.2d 903, 419 N.Y.S.2d 438, 1979 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13156, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-drago-nyappdiv-1979.