People v. Gellis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gellis

20 A.D.2d 671, 246 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511

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

DecidedJanuary 27, 1964

StatusPublished

This text of 20 A.D.2d 671 (People v. Gellis) 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. Gellis, 20 A.D.2d 671, 246 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1964).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from three separate judgments of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 22, 1962 on his pleas of guilty to three separate indictments, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree and attempted forgery in the second degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to serve consecutive terms of 5 to 10 years upon each conviction. Judgments affirmed. Defendant contends that the imposition of such consecutive terms of imprisonment constituted excessive punishment and that the sentences should be reduced to the time he has already served. We find nothing in the record which would warrant a reduction of the sentences imposed upon defendant as a prior felony offender. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from three separate judgments of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered June 22, 1962 on his pleas of guilty to three separate indictments, convicting him of grand larceny in the second degree and attempted forgery in the second degree, and sentencing him as a second felony offender to serve consecutive terms of 5 to 10 years upon each conviction. Judgments affirmed. Defendant contends that the imposition of such consecutive terms of imprisonment constituted excessive punishment and that the sentences should be reduced to the time he has already served. We find nothing in the record which would warrant a reduction of the sentences imposed upon defendant as a prior felony offender. Beldock, P. J., Ughetta, Kleinfeld, Hill and Hopkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

20 A.D.2d 671, 246 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1964 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4511, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gellis-nyappdiv-1964.