People v. Hyde

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hyde

3 A.D.2d 854, 161 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869

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

DecidedApril 15, 1957

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 3 A.D.2d 854 (People v. Hyde) 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. Hyde, 3 A.D.2d 854, 161 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1957).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment" of the County Court, Kings County, convicting appellant, after trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree while armed with a dangerous weapon and of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7% to 15 years for the attempted robbery, an additional term of 5 to 10 years for being armed in the commission thereof, and a term of 5 to 10 years for the assault, such terms to run consecutively, making a total of 17% to 35 years, and from each and every intermediate order therein made. Judgment modified on the facts .by striking therefrom the provisions imposing the additional term for being armed and that the terms are to run consecutively, and by adding thereto a provision to the effect that the terms imposed on the robbery and assault charges shall run concurrently. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed. " In our opinion, the imposition of the additional sentence for being armed constitutes, in the circumstances of this case, excessive punishment for the crimes of which appellant was adjudged to be guilty. (People v. Doran, 2 A D 2d 890.) It is the policy of the law of this State to impose a single punishment for a single act (Penal Law, § 1938; People v. Bepola, 280 App. Div. 735, affd. 305 N. Y. 740; People v. Horn, 282 App. Div. 956). Even assuming that the assault was a separate act and not an integral part of the attempted robbery, thus permitting a separate sentence for each crime (People v. Bepola, supra), nevertheless, in view of the fact that appellant had never been previously convicted of a felony and in the light of the other relevant facts and circumstances, the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, terms for these crimes likewise constitutes excessive punishment (People v. Santanello, 1 A D 2d 891; People v. Craig, 1 A D 2d 891; People v. Festa, 271 App. Div. 935). No separate appeal lies from the inter[855]*855mediate orders, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment" of the County Court, Kings County, convicting appellant, after trial, of attempted robbery in the first degree while armed with a dangerous weapon and of assault in the first degree, and sentencing him to a term of 7% to 15 years for the attempted robbery, an additional term of 5 to 10 years for being armed in the commission thereof, and a term of 5 to 10 years for the assault, such terms to run consecutively, making a total of 17% to 35 years, and from each and every intermediate order therein made. Judgment modified on the facts .by striking therefrom the provisions imposing the additional term for being armed and that the terms are to run consecutively, and by adding thereto a provision to the effect that the terms imposed on the robbery and assault charges shall run concurrently. As so modified, judgment unanimously affirmed. " In our opinion, the imposition of the additional sentence for being armed constitutes, in the circumstances of this case, excessive punishment for the crimes of which appellant was adjudged to be guilty. (People v. Doran, 2 A D 2d 890.) It is the policy of the law of this State to impose a single punishment for a single act (Penal Law, § 1938; People v. Bepola, 280 App. Div. 735, affd. 305 N. Y. 740; People v. Horn, 282 App. Div. 956). Even assuming that the assault was a separate act and not an integral part of the attempted robbery, thus permitting a separate sentence for each crime (People v. Bepola, supra), nevertheless, in view of the fact that appellant had never been previously convicted of a felony and in the light of the other relevant facts and circumstances, the imposition of consecutive, rather than concurrent, terms for these crimes likewise constitutes excessive punishment (People v. Santanello, 1 A D 2d 891; People v. Craig, 1 A D 2d 891; People v. Festa, 271 App. Div. 935). No separate appeal lies from the inter[855]*855mediate orders, which have been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction. Present — Nolan, P. J., Wenzel, Murphy, Hallinan and Kleinfeld, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 A.D.2d 854, 161 N.Y.S.2d 808, 1957 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5869, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hyde-nyappdiv-1957.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack