People v. Hilton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hilton

42 A.D.2d 968, 347 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3463

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

DecidedOctober 9, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 968 (People v. Hilton) 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. Hilton, 42 A.D.2d 968, 347 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3463 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal .by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed June 1, 1972; on a conviction of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to the Criminal Term for resentencing. It is our opinion that the language employed by the sentencing court was equivocal on the question of its awareness of the options open for the sentencing of a defendant who is a narcotic addict not receivable by the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission (People v. Williams, 41 A D 2d 669; People v. Laing, 40 A D 2d 709). Moreover, the sentencing court stated that if the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission facilities were then available it would commit defendant thereto (People v. Breland, 40 A D 2d 1034; People v. Goldenberg, 40 A D 2d 613). Accordingly, defendant should be resentenced. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., Concur.

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

Appeal .by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed June 1, 1972; on a conviction of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to the Criminal Term for resentencing. It is our opinion that the language employed by the sentencing court was equivocal on the question of its awareness of the options open for the sentencing of a defendant who is a narcotic addict not receivable by the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission (People v. Williams, 41 A D 2d 669; People v. Laing, 40 A D 2d 709). Moreover, the sentencing court stated that if the Narcotic Addiction Control Commission facilities were then available it would commit defendant thereto (People v. Breland, 40 A D 2d 1034; People v. Goldenberg, 40 A D 2d 613). Accordingly, defendant should be resentenced. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., Concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 968, 347 N.Y.S.2d 974, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3463, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hilton-nyappdiv-1973.