People v. Gutter

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gutter

54 A.D.2d 946, 388 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14835

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

DecidedNovember 15, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 946 (People v. Gutter) 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. Gutter, 54 A.D.2d 946, 388 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14835 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant (1) as limited by his brief, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, imposed November 26, 1975, and (2) from a judgment of the same court, rendered January 13, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Amended sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentence in compliance with section 70.00 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Penal Law. The record discloses that the sentencing court failed to set forth its reasons for imposing a minimum sentence, as is required by section 70.00 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Penal Law. Therefore, defendant should be resentenced (see People v Healey, 46 AD2d 691). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant (1) as limited by his brief, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Richmond County, imposed November 26, 1975, and (2) from a judgment of the same court, rendered January 13, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon a plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. No opinion. Amended sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentence in compliance with section 70.00 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Penal Law. The record discloses that the sentencing court failed to set forth its reasons for imposing a minimum sentence, as is required by section 70.00 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Penal Law. Therefore, defendant should be resentenced (see People v Healey, 46 AD2d 691). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 946, 388 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 14835, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gutter-nyappdiv-1976.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack