People v. Hoffman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hoffman

54 A.D.2d 527, 386 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13784

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

DecidedAugust 5, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 54 A.D.2d 527 (People v. Hoffman) 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. Hoffman, 54 A.D.2d 527, 386 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13784 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered September 4, 1975, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of forgery in the second degree. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of zero to four years following his conviction after a jury trial for the crime of forgery in the second degree. We have reviewed the Huntley hearing and have determined that the finding of the trial court that defendant’s statement was voluntarily made was proper under all the facts and circumstances. Furthermore, we find no error in the ruling of the trial court which would have permitted the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant, had he testified, concerning specific prior convictions. Likewise, we find that the sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive. We have examined the remainder of defendant’s contentions and find them to be without merit. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Mahoney, Larkin and. Reynolds, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Chemung County, rendered September 4, 1975, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of forgery in the second degree. Defendant was sentenced to a term of imprisonment of zero to four years following his conviction after a jury trial for the crime of forgery in the second degree. We have reviewed the Huntley hearing and have determined that the finding of the trial court that defendant’s statement was voluntarily made was proper under all the facts and circumstances. Furthermore, we find no error in the ruling of the trial court which would have permitted the prosecution to cross-examine the defendant, had he testified, concerning specific prior convictions. Likewise, we find that the sentence imposed upon the defendant was not excessive. We have examined the remainder of defendant’s contentions and find them to be without merit. Judgment affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Mahoney, Larkin and. Reynolds, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

54 A.D.2d 527, 386 N.Y.S.2d 250, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13784, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hoffman-nyappdiv-1976.