People v. Frank L.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Frank L.

12 A.D.3d 1071, 784 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13822

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

DecidedNovember 19, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 1071 (People v. Frank L.) 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. Frank L., 12 A.D.3d 1071, 784 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13822 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

[1072]*1072Appeal from an adjudication of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph S. Forma, J.), rendered July 10, 2002, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the adjudication so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Supreme Court was authorized to impose a sentence of imprisonment and probation following the revocation of the original sentence of probation (see Penal Law § 60.01 [4]; People v Krawcyk, 130 Misc 2d 253, 254 [1985]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment upon the second revocation of probation did not place him in double jeopardy (see generally People v Tucker, 272 AD2d 992 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 872 [2000]; People v Johnson, 159 AD2d 725, 726 [1990]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

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

[1072]*1072Appeal from an adjudication of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Joseph S. Forma, J.), rendered July 10, 2002, which revoked defendant’s probation and imposed a sentence of imprisonment.

It is hereby ordered that the adjudication so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Supreme Court was authorized to impose a sentence of imprisonment and probation following the revocation of the original sentence of probation (see Penal Law § 60.01 [4]; People v Krawcyk, 130 Misc 2d 253, 254 [1985]). Contrary to the contention of defendant, the imposition of a sentence of imprisonment upon the second revocation of probation did not place him in double jeopardy (see generally People v Tucker, 272 AD2d 992 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 872 [2000]; People v Johnson, 159 AD2d 725, 726 [1990]). Present—Pigott, Jr., PJ., Green, Pine, Hurlbutt and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 1071, 784 N.Y.S.2d 444, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-frank-l-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack