People v. Hudson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hudson

263 A.D.2d 545, 692 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8399

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

DecidedJuly 26, 1999

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 263 A.D.2d 545 (People v. Hudson) 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. Hudson, 263 A.D.2d 545, 692 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8399 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1999).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings [546]*546County (Starkey, J.), rendered May 20, 1997, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he violated two conditions thereof, upon his admission and, in effect, after a hearing, respectively, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, in satisfaction of two indictments, and a sentence of probation was imposed. Thereafter, two specifications were filed against him charging him with violations of his probation. Specifically, it was alleged that the defendant failed to report to his probation officer, and that he had committed a burglary and related crimes, which were the subject of Indictment No. 8084/96.

On October 11, 1996, the defendant appeared in court and admitted only to the specification charging him with failing to report to his probation officer. Based on that admission, the defendant was found in violation of probation, and the matter was then adjourned for the purpose of resentencing. In the interim, the defendant proceeded to trial under Indictment No. 8084/96.

As correctly conceded by the People, the Supreme Court erred when, at the resentencing of the defendant on May 20, 1997, it adjudicated the defendant to be guilty of the second specification concerning the crimes charged under Indictment No. 8084/ 96, and resentenced him to an indeterminate term of two to six years imprisonment. Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is vacated and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing based solely on the specification charging him with a violation of probation based on failing to report to his probation officer. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings [546]*546County (Starkey, J.), rendered May 20, 1997, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court upon a finding that he violated two conditions thereof, upon his admission and, in effect, after a hearing, respectively, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

The defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, in satisfaction of two indictments, and a sentence of probation was imposed. Thereafter, two specifications were filed against him charging him with violations of his probation. Specifically, it was alleged that the defendant failed to report to his probation officer, and that he had committed a burglary and related crimes, which were the subject of Indictment No. 8084/96.

On October 11, 1996, the defendant appeared in court and admitted only to the specification charging him with failing to report to his probation officer. Based on that admission, the defendant was found in violation of probation, and the matter was then adjourned for the purpose of resentencing. In the interim, the defendant proceeded to trial under Indictment No. 8084/96.

As correctly conceded by the People, the Supreme Court erred when, at the resentencing of the defendant on May 20, 1997, it adjudicated the defendant to be guilty of the second specification concerning the crimes charged under Indictment No. 8084/ 96, and resentenced him to an indeterminate term of two to six years imprisonment. Accordingly, the defendant’s sentence is vacated and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for resentencing based solely on the specification charging him with a violation of probation based on failing to report to his probation officer. Bracken, J. P., O’Brien, Krausman and Mc-Ginity, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

263 A.D.2d 545, 692 N.Y.S.2d 614, 1999 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8399, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hudson-nyappdiv-1999.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack