People v. Echevarria

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Echevarria

25 A.D.2d 505, 266 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047

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

DecidedFebruary 3, 1966

StatusPublished

This text of 25 A.D.2d 505 (People v. Echevarria) 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. Echevarria, 25 A.D.2d 505, 266 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1966).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment convicting defendant of the crimes of selling a narcotic drug (Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 1; two counts) and possessing a narcotic drug (Public Health Law, § 3305; two counts), unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of reducing the sentence imposed under the Penal Law to not less than five nor more than seven years on the ground that the sentence was excessive in view of defendant’s previous good record, and, as so modified, affirmed. The imposition of concurrent sentences was proper since the punishment does not exceed the maximum for the crime of selling narcotics. (Penal Law, § 1938; People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson, 2 N Y 2d 259.) In People v. Repola (280 App. Div. 735, affd. 305 N. Y. 740), this court struck out a consecutive sentence on the ground that possession was a part of the sale and included in it. In the instant case, [506]*506the sentences are concurrent and in accord with the holding in People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson (supra) .

Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

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

Judgment convicting defendant of the crimes of selling a narcotic drug (Penal Law, § 1751, subd. 1; two counts) and possessing a narcotic drug (Public Health Law, § 3305; two counts), unanimously modified, on the law and on the facts, to the extent of reducing the sentence imposed under the Penal Law to not less than five nor more than seven years on the ground that the sentence was excessive in view of defendant’s previous good record, and, as so modified, affirmed. The imposition of concurrent sentences was proper since the punishment does not exceed the maximum for the crime of selling narcotics. (Penal Law, § 1938; People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson, 2 N Y 2d 259.) In People v. Repola (280 App. Div. 735, affd. 305 N. Y. 740), this court struck out a consecutive sentence on the ground that possession was a part of the sale and included in it. In the instant case, [506]*506the sentences are concurrent and in accord with the holding in People ex rel. Maurer v. Jackson (supra) .

Concur — Valente, J. P., McNally, Eager, Steuer and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

25 A.D.2d 505, 266 N.Y.S.2d 783, 1966 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5047, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-echevarria-nyappdiv-1966.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack