People v. Dullen

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Dullen

60 A.D.2d 785, 400 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14841

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

DecidedDecember 16, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 785 (People v. Dullen) 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. Dullen, 60 A.D.2d 785, 400 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14841 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his sentence of 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment was excessive and that the court erred in failing to comply with section 70.00 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Penal Law, requiring that when a minimum period of imprisonment is imposed, the court state the reasons therefor. At sentencing the court recommended that defendant receive psychiatric assistance "in overcoming these problems of sexual or deviate sexual behavior that you seem to have”. Although the court should have stated specifically its reasons for fixing the minimum sentence, we think that the above statement sufficiently explains the reason therefor, and that it would be an unnecessary "salute to formalism” to reverse the sentence and to remand for resentencing (see People v Rojas, 42 NY2d 1035; People v Esteves, 41 NY2d 826). We do not find that the sentence is excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court—attempted rape, first degree.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that his sentence of 5 to 15 years’ imprisonment was excessive and that the court erred in failing to comply with section 70.00 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Penal Law, requiring that when a minimum period of imprisonment is imposed, the court state the reasons therefor. At sentencing the court recommended that defendant receive psychiatric assistance "in overcoming these problems of sexual or deviate sexual behavior that you seem to have”. Although the court should have stated specifically its reasons for fixing the minimum sentence, we think that the above statement sufficiently explains the reason therefor, and that it would be an unnecessary "salute to formalism” to reverse the sentence and to remand for resentencing (see People v Rojas, 42 NY2d 1035; People v Esteves, 41 NY2d 826). We do not find that the sentence is excessive. (Appeal from judgment of Niagara County Court—attempted rape, first degree.) Present—Cardamone, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Denman and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 785, 400 N.Y.S.2d 652, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14841, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-dullen-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack