People v. Jandelli

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jandelli

158 A.D.2d 620, 551 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2009

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 1990

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 158 A.D.2d 620 (People v. Jandelli) 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. Jandelli, 158 A.D.2d 620, 551 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2009 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

Opinion

By order of this court, dated March 10, 1986, the judgment of conviction was modified by vacating the original sentence imposed for murder in the second degree, the judgment as so modified was affirmed, and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing (People v Jandelli, 118 AD2d 656).

The resentencing court’s failure to obtain an updated presentence report before imposing resentence does not require vacatur of the resentence, as the resentence imposed is the minimum authorized sentence (see, People v Navarro, 91 AD2d 618; see also, People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they do not require reversal. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Hooper and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

By order of this court, dated March 10, 1986, the judgment of conviction was modified by vacating the original sentence imposed for murder in the second degree, the judgment as so modified was affirmed, and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing (People v Jandelli, 118 AD2d 656).

The resentencing court’s failure to obtain an updated presentence report before imposing resentence does not require vacatur of the resentence, as the resentence imposed is the minimum authorized sentence (see, People v Navarro, 91 AD2d 618; see also, People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98).

We have considered the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they do not require reversal. Mollen, P. J., Brown, Hooper and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

158 A.D.2d 620, 551 N.Y.S.2d 590, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2009, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jandelli-nyappdiv-1990.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack