People v. Hamilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hamilton

48 A.D.2d 932, 372 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10217

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

DecidedJune 30, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 932 (People v. Hamilton) 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. Hamilton, 48 A.D.2d 932, 372 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10217 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered January 29, 1974, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment, each with a maximum of five years. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence on each conviction to a period of probation. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Criminal Term to fix the period and conditions of probation. In our opinion, defendant should have been sentenced to a period of probation on each conviction. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Shapiro, 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, Queens County, rendered January 29, 1974, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and assault in the second degree, after a nonjury trial, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment, each with a maximum of five years. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence on each conviction to a period of probation. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to the Criminal Term to fix the period and conditions of probation. In our opinion, defendant should have been sentenced to a period of probation on each conviction. Rabin, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Cohalan, Brennan and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 932, 372 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10217, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hamilton-nyappdiv-1975.