People v. Harlow

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harlow

61 A.D.2d 990, 402 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10612

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.2d 990 (People v. Harlow) 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. Harlow, 61 A.D.2d 990, 402 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10612 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 4, 1976, which, after a hearing, (1) revoked the sentence of probation previously imposed upon her conviction of attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree and (2) resentenced her to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of three years. Amended judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the period of incarceration to the time already served. As so modified, amended judgment affirmed. The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Latham, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered November 4, 1976, which, after a hearing, (1) revoked the sentence of probation previously imposed upon her conviction of attempted criminal possession of a dangerous drug in the fourth degree and (2) resentenced her to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a maximum of three years. Amended judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the period of incarceration to the time already served. As so modified, amended judgment affirmed. The sentence imposed was excessive to the extent indicated herein. Latham, J. P., Cohalan, Margett and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.2d 990, 402 N.Y.S.2d 793, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10612, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harlow-nyappdiv-1978.