People v. Hancock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hancock

13 A.D.3d 553, 786 N.Y.S.2d 313, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15843

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

DecidedDecember 20, 2004

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 13 A.D.3d 553 (People v. Hancock) 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. Hancock, 13 A.D.3d 553, 786 N.Y.S.2d 313, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15843 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered August 29, 2002, convicting him of assault in the first degree under Superior Court Information No. 137/02, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea of guilty is vacated, Superior Court Information No. 137/02 is dismissed, indictment No. 51/02 is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

[554]*554The People properly concede that the plea must be vacated because the defendant’s waiver of indictment occurred after the grand jury returned an indictment covering the same criminal transactions (see CPL 195.10 [2] [b]; People v Boston, 75 NY2d 585, 588-589 [1990]; People v Libby, 246 AD2d 669, 670-671 [1998]).

In light of the foregoing, the defendant’s challenge to his sentence is academic. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered August 29, 2002, convicting him of assault in the first degree under Superior Court Information No. 137/02, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is reversed, on the law, the plea of guilty is vacated, Superior Court Information No. 137/02 is dismissed, indictment No. 51/02 is reinstated, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

[554]*554The People properly concede that the plea must be vacated because the defendant’s waiver of indictment occurred after the grand jury returned an indictment covering the same criminal transactions (see CPL 195.10 [2] [b]; People v Boston, 75 NY2d 585, 588-589 [1990]; People v Libby, 246 AD2d 669, 670-671 [1998]).

In light of the foregoing, the defendant’s challenge to his sentence is academic. Florio, J.P., Goldstein, Adams, Rivera and Spolzino, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

13 A.D.3d 553, 786 N.Y.S.2d 313, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 15843, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hancock-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack