People v. Esperto

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Esperto

40 A.D.2d 834, 337 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3486

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 834 (People v. Esperto) 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. Esperto, 40 A.D.2d 834, 337 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3486 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County, imposed November 30, 1971, committing him to an indeterminate prison term of a maximum of three years, upon a conviction of attempted sale of a dangerous drug in the second degree, on his guilty plea. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to the County Court for resentence in accordance with the views herein set forth. The record indicates that defendant was a drug addict entitled to examination and sentencing pursuant to sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The County Court recognized his addiction, but did not give him the benefit of the treatment accorded by those provisions of the law because the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission had refused to accept any addicts at the time. For the reasons stated in People v. Bennet (39 A D 2d 320), defendant is entitled to be considered eligible for all the alternatives provided by statute for sen-[835]*835tenting. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the County Court, Nassau County, imposed November 30, 1971, committing him to an indeterminate prison term of a maximum of three years, upon a conviction of attempted sale of a dangerous drug in the second degree, on his guilty plea. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to the County Court for resentence in accordance with the views herein set forth. The record indicates that defendant was a drug addict entitled to examination and sentencing pursuant to sections 207 and 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The County Court recognized his addiction, but did not give him the benefit of the treatment accorded by those provisions of the law because the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission had refused to accept any addicts at the time. For the reasons stated in People v. Bennet (39 A D 2d 320), defendant is entitled to be considered eligible for all the alternatives provided by statute for sen-[835]*835tenting. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 834, 337 N.Y.S.2d 326, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3486, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-esperto-nyappdiv-1972.