People v. James M.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. James M.

47 A.D.2d 907, 366 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9332

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

DecidedApril 7, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 907 (People v. James M.) 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. James M., 47 A.D.2d 907, 366 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9332 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendants (1) from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (one as to each defendant), both rendered March 6, 1974, adjudicating them youthful offenders and imposing sentences, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, dated April 12, 1974, which denied their motions to vacate the sentences and for resentencing. Order reversed, on the law, and motions granted. Judgments modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentencing in accordance herewith. As so modified, judgments affirmed. The Justice at Criminal Term had the power to make a choice and to exercise his discretion thereon, as to whether probationary or reformatory sentences should be imposed. We express no opinion as to what type of sentences should have been imposed, but leave that to the Justice’s discretion. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham,

Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendants (1) from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Queens County (one as to each defendant), both rendered March 6, 1974, adjudicating them youthful offenders and imposing sentences, and (2) by permission, from an order of the same court, dated April 12, 1974, which denied their motions to vacate the sentences and for resentencing. Order reversed, on the law, and motions granted. Judgments modified, on the law, by vacating the sentences, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentencing in accordance herewith. As so modified, judgments affirmed. The Justice at Criminal Term had the power to make a choice and to exercise his discretion thereon, as to whether probationary or reformatory sentences should be imposed. We express no opinion as to what type of sentences should have been imposed, but leave that to the Justice’s discretion. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Latham,

Cohalan, Brennan and Munder, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 907, 366 N.Y.S.2d 222, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9332, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-james-m-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack