People v. Hollins

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hollins

200 A.D.2d 501, 608 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 474

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

DecidedJanuary 20, 1994

StatusPublished

This text of 200 A.D.2d 501 (People v. Hollins) 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. Hollins, 200 A.D.2d 501, 608 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 474 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford A. Scott, J.), rendered March 30, 1990, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the conviction to petit larceny, and to reduce the sentence imposed to 1 year.

Defendant argues, and the People concede, that defendant’s conviction must be reduced to petit larceny since the court’s supplemental instructions on the "from the person of another” element of the crime was error (Penal Law § 155.30 [5]). However, since defendant already served the maximum time to which he could have been sentenced on the petit larceny conviction, it is unnecessary to remand for sentencing. (People v Perez, 196 AD2d 444, lv denied 82 NY2d 758.) Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Clifford A. Scott, J.), rendered March 30, 1990, which convicted defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentenced him, as a second felony offender, to a term of 2 to 4 years, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the conviction to petit larceny, and to reduce the sentence imposed to 1 year.

Defendant argues, and the People concede, that defendant’s conviction must be reduced to petit larceny since the court’s supplemental instructions on the "from the person of another” element of the crime was error (Penal Law § 155.30 [5]). However, since defendant already served the maximum time to which he could have been sentenced on the petit larceny conviction, it is unnecessary to remand for sentencing. (People v Perez, 196 AD2d 444, lv denied 82 NY2d 758.) Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Asch, Rubin, Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

200 A.D.2d 501, 608 N.Y.S.2d 814, 1994 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 474, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hollins-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack