People v. Goddard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goddard

112 A.D.2d 379, 491 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56512

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

DecidedJuly 22, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 112 A.D.2d 379 (People v. Goddard) 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. Goddard, 112 A.D.2d 379, 491 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from four sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.), all imposed October 21, 1983.

Sentences reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

We have reviewed the record and find no merit to defendant’s contention that his bargained-for sentences were harsh and excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). However, where a defendant is convicted on more than one count of a multiple count indictment, the court must pronounce sentence on each count upon which he was convicted (CPL 380.20; see, People v Richard H., 101 AD2d 867; People v Charles, 98 AD2d 780). Since that was not done here, defendant must be resentenced. We also note that defendant should have been adjudicated a second violent felony offender (Penal Law § 70.04 [1]). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, O’Con-nor and Niehoff, 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 motion, from four sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hayes, J.), all imposed October 21, 1983.

Sentences reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

We have reviewed the record and find no merit to defendant’s contention that his bargained-for sentences were harsh and excessive (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816; People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). However, where a defendant is convicted on more than one count of a multiple count indictment, the court must pronounce sentence on each count upon which he was convicted (CPL 380.20; see, People v Richard H., 101 AD2d 867; People v Charles, 98 AD2d 780). Since that was not done here, defendant must be resentenced. We also note that defendant should have been adjudicated a second violent felony offender (Penal Law § 70.04 [1]). Mollen, P. J., Lazer, O’Con-nor and Niehoff, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

112 A.D.2d 379, 491 N.Y.S.2d 834, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 56512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goddard-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack