People v. Graham
228 A.D.2d 520, 643 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6628
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 10, 1996·Published·Cited by 1 cases
Opinion
[521]*521As the People correctly concede, the imposition of a contingent sentence of incarceration to be served in addition to the maximum authorized period of incarceration is illegal (CPL 420.10 [4] [d]; People v Laurino, 205 AD2d 556). Therefore, the sentence imposed under Superior Court Information No. 87421 must be modified by vacating the additional, conditional term which would cause the total aggregate sentence to exceed the statutory maximum (People v Laurino, supra). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Miller, Copertino and Hart, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Graham, 228 A.D.2d 520, 643 N.Y.2d 1009, 643 N.Y.S.2d 1009, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6628 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).
228 A.D.2d 520 (People v. Graham) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. Espola
238 A.D.2d 281 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1997)