People v. Garson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Garson

53 A.D.2d 618, 384 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13309

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

DecidedJune 1, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 53 A.D.2d 618 (People v. Garson) 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. Garson, 53 A.D.2d 618, 384 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13309 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 7, 1976, upon his conviction of criminal facilitation in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term not to exceed three years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to a period of probation. As so modified, sentence affirmed and case remanded to the Criminal Term to fix the period and terms of probation. While the probation report submitted eschews a recommendation, the defendant’s counsel in the sentencing minutes referred to the probation report’s recommendation for probation. Further, the sentencing court stated that the sentence was "contrary to the recommendation of the Probation Department”. We find the Probation Department’s indication of probation for this first offender to be supported by the record. Hargett, Acting P. J., Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Damiani and Rabin, JJ., 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 Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered April 7, 1976, upon his conviction of criminal facilitation in the first degree, after a nonjury trial, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term not to exceed three years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to a period of probation. As so modified, sentence affirmed and case remanded to the Criminal Term to fix the period and terms of probation. While the probation report submitted eschews a recommendation, the defendant’s counsel in the sentencing minutes referred to the probation report’s recommendation for probation. Further, the sentencing court stated that the sentence was "contrary to the recommendation of the Probation Department”. We find the Probation Department’s indication of probation for this first offender to be supported by the record. Hargett, Acting P. J., Shapiro and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Damiani and Rabin, JJ., dissent and vote to affirm the sentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

53 A.D.2d 618, 384 N.Y.S.2d 26, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13309, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garson-nyappdiv-1976.