People v. Hollis

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hollis

34 A.D.2d 786, 311 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4986

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

DecidedMay 4, 1970

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 34 A.D.2d 786 (People v. Hollis) 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. Hollis, 34 A.D.2d 786, 311 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered February 25, 1969 upon resentence, convicting him of assault in the second degree with intent to commit rape, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of one day to life. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s main contention is that the psychiatric report relied upon by the resentencing court was “insufficient as a matter of law ” to permit imposition of the one day to life sentence. The record developed at the hearing, including the psychiatric report, provided a sufficient basis upon which the court could exercise its discretion (cf. People v. McCraw, 33 A D 2d 577). It is our view that the sentence imposed was proper in the light of that record. We have also considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Christ, P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered February 25, 1969 upon resentence, convicting him of assault in the second degree with intent to commit rape, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of one day to life. Judgment affirmed. Defendant’s main contention is that the psychiatric report relied upon by the resentencing court was “insufficient as a matter of law ” to permit imposition of the one day to life sentence. The record developed at the hearing, including the psychiatric report, provided a sufficient basis upon which the court could exercise its discretion (cf. People v. McCraw, 33 A D 2d 577). It is our view that the sentence imposed was proper in the light of that record. We have also considered defendant’s other contentions and find them to be without merit. Christ, P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Latham and Kleinfeld, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 786, 311 N.Y.S.2d 968, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hollis-nyappdiv-1970.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack