People v. LaSalle

New York Court of Appeals

People v. LaSalle

734 N.E.2d 749, 95 N.Y.2d 827, 712 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 1424

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJune 29, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by42 cases

This text of 734 N.E.2d 749 (People v. LaSalle) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. LaSalle, 734 N.E.2d 749, 95 N.Y.2d 827, 712 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 1424 (N.Y. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. In this case, the Appellate Division ruled that the trial court “erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the defendant’s convictions of sodomy in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree since both convictions arose out of a single incident” (258 AD2d 668, 669). Its order modified the judgment by “deleting the provision thereof imposing consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment and substituting therefor a provision that all of the sentences shall run concurrently to one another” (id.).

*829 The sole issue raised in the People’s appeal is whether, under CPL 470.20, the Appellate Division’s only available corrective action on the illegal sentence was to remit for resentencing by the trial court. To the contrary, an intermediate appellate court, in exercising its responsibility under CPL 470.20 to take “such corrective action as is necessary and appropriate,” has the discretion, upon reversing or modifying a sentence, either to remit to the trial court for resentencing or to substitute its own legal sentence for the illegally imposed sentence. The Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion by choosing the latter option.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. In this case, the Appellate Division ruled that the trial court “erred in imposing consecutive sentences for the defendant’s convictions of sodomy in the first degree and criminal use of a firearm in the first degree since both convictions arose out of a single incident” (258 AD2d 668, 669). Its order modified the judgment by “deleting the provision thereof imposing consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment and substituting therefor a provision that all of the sentences shall run concurrently to one another” (id.).

*829 The sole issue raised in the People’s appeal is whether, under CPL 470.20, the Appellate Division’s only available corrective action on the illegal sentence was to remit for resentencing by the trial court. To the contrary, an intermediate appellate court, in exercising its responsibility under CPL 470.20 to take “such corrective action as is necessary and appropriate,” has the discretion, upon reversing or modifying a sentence, either to remit to the trial court for resentencing or to substitute its own legal sentence for the illegally imposed sentence. The Appellate Division did not abuse its discretion by choosing the latter option.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick, Wesley and Rosenblatt concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

734 N.E.2d 749, 95 N.Y.2d 827, 712 N.Y.S.2d 437, 2000 N.Y. LEXIS 1424, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lasalle-ny-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack