People v. Harbin

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harbin

76 A.D.2d 889, 432 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975

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

DecidedJune 16, 1980

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 76 A.D.2d 889 (People v. Harbin) 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. Harbin, 76 A.D.2d 889, 432 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County, both rendered March 30, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and second degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and sentencing him to prison terms of from 8 to 16 years on the first degree robbery count and 6 to 12 years on the second degree robbery count, with both sentences to run concurrently with each other and with a sentence imposed in Alabama. Judgments modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence entered on the conviction of robbery in the first degree to a maximum of 14 years and 9 months and a minimum of 7 years and 4>/i months, and by reducing the sentence entered on the conviction of robbery in the second degree to a maximum of 10 years and 9 months and a minimum of 5 years and AVi months. As so modified, judgments affirmed and the defendant is to be delivered to the appropriate Alabama official forthwith so that he may begin serving his sentence in that State. At the time defendant entered his pleas, and again at the time of sentencing, the court directed that the sentences imposed were to run concurrently with the remainder of the undischarged term for which defendant was still responsible in Alabama. However, as the District Attorney concedes, the New York sentence cannot begin to run until defendant is delivered to the appropriate Alabama authorities (see Penal Law, § 70.30, subd 2, par [a]; § 70.20, subd 3). Accordingly, we have directed that defendant be returned to the custody of Alabama forthwith, so that the sentences imposed may be effectuated (see People v Brown, 63 AD2d 988). As defendant’s New York sentences have not yet begun to run, we reduce those sentences by a period of time equal to the period which defendant has spent in prison in New York since his sentences were imposed. We do not find those sentences otherwise excessive. Margett, J. P., Martuscello, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Suffolk County, both rendered March 30, 1979, convicting him of robbery in the first degree and second degree, upon his pleas of guilty, and sentencing him to prison terms of from 8 to 16 years on the first degree robbery count and 6 to 12 years on the second degree robbery count, with both sentences to run concurrently with each other and with a sentence imposed in Alabama. Judgments modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence entered on the conviction of robbery in the first degree to a maximum of 14 years and 9 months and a minimum of 7 years and 4>/i months, and by reducing the sentence entered on the conviction of robbery in the second degree to a maximum of 10 years and 9 months and a minimum of 5 years and AVi months. As so modified, judgments affirmed and the defendant is to be delivered to the appropriate Alabama official forthwith so that he may begin serving his sentence in that State. At the time defendant entered his pleas, and again at the time of sentencing, the court directed that the sentences imposed were to run concurrently with the remainder of the undischarged term for which defendant was still responsible in Alabama. However, as the District Attorney concedes, the New York sentence cannot begin to run until defendant is delivered to the appropriate Alabama authorities (see Penal Law, § 70.30, subd 2, par [a]; § 70.20, subd 3). Accordingly, we have directed that defendant be returned to the custody of Alabama forthwith, so that the sentences imposed may be effectuated (see People v Brown, 63 AD2d 988). As defendant’s New York sentences have not yet begun to run, we reduce those sentences by a period of time equal to the period which defendant has spent in prison in New York since his sentences were imposed. We do not find those sentences otherwise excessive. Margett, J. P., Martuscello, O’Connor and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 A.D.2d 889, 432 N.Y.S.2d 854, 1980 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harbin-nyappdiv-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack