People v. Goldenberg

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Goldenberg

40 A.D.2d 613, 335 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3892

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

DecidedSeptember 25, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 613 (People v. Goldenberg) 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. Goldenberg, 40 A.D.2d 613, 335 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3892 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 14, 1971, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment. Judgment reversed as to the sentence, on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminal Term for resentencing. It is indisputably apparent that on the date of defendant’s sentence he was a narcotic addict and the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission was not accepting criminal defendants under section 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law. It further appears that the probation report in this case was generally sympathetic to defendant’s contention that he was an addict who genuinely sought rehabilitation and who had made some progress toward that goal. Under the foregoing circumstances, it seems likely that if the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission facilities were available on the date of sentence defendant would have been committed thereto. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that defendant should be resentenced. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered December 14, 1971, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, upon a plea of guilty, and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment. Judgment reversed as to the sentence, on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminal Term for resentencing. It is indisputably apparent that on the date of defendant’s sentence he was a narcotic addict and the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission was not accepting criminal defendants under section 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law. It further appears that the probation report in this case was generally sympathetic to defendant’s contention that he was an addict who genuinely sought rehabilitation and who had made some progress toward that goal. Under the foregoing circumstances, it seems likely that if the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission facilities were available on the date of sentence defendant would have been committed thereto. Accordingly, this court is of the opinion that defendant should be resentenced. Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 613, 335 N.Y.S.2d 918, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3892, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-goldenberg-nyappdiv-1972.