People v. Kenyatta

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Kenyatta

52 A.D.2d 783, 383 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12565

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided May 11, 1976·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinions

Judgment rendered November 25, 1974, in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, convicting defendant-appellant upon a jury verdict of the crimes of attempted murder and possession of a weapon as a felony and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 21 years to life and seven years respectively, modified in the exercise of discretion to reduce the sentence for the attempted murder conviction to 15 years to life and as so modified the judgment is otherwise affirmed. Given the unusual background of this case and the apparent absence of any prior record, the sentence, although within prescribed statutory limits, seems unduly harsh. On the other hand, the finding of guilt being affirmed, any modification made here is restricted by statute. (Penal Law, §§ 125.27, 110.05, 70.00, subd 2, par [a]; § 70.00, subd 3, par [a], cl [i]) Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich and Murphy, JJ.; Silverman, J., concurs in a memorandum, and Nunez, J., dissents in part in a memorandum as follows:

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

Judgment rendered November 25, 1974, in the Supreme Court, Bronx County, convicting defendant-appellant upon a jury verdict of the crimes of attempted murder and possession of a weapon as a felony and sentencing him to concurrent indeterminate terms of imprisonment of from 21 years to life and seven years respectively, modified in the exercise of discretion to reduce the sentence for the attempted murder conviction to 15 years to life and as so modified the judgment is otherwise affirmed. Given the unusual background of this case and the apparent absence of any prior record, the sentence, although within prescribed statutory limits, seems unduly harsh. On the other hand, the finding of guilt being affirmed, any modification made here is restricted by statute. (Penal Law, §§ 125.27, 110.05, 70.00, subd 2, par [a]; § 70.00, subd 3, par [a], cl [i]) Concur—Stevens, P. J., Markewich and Murphy, JJ.; Silverman, J., concurs in a memorandum, and Nunez, J., dissents in part in a memorandum as follows:

People v. Kenyatta, 52 A.D.2d 783, 383 N.Y.S.2d 20, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

52 A.D.2d 783 (People v. Kenyatta) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinions

Related