People v. Leacock

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Leacock

196 A.D.2d 663, 602 N.Y.S.2d 552

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

DecidedAugust 30, 1993

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 196 A.D.2d 663 (People v. Leacock) 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. Leacock, 196 A.D.2d 663, 602 N.Y.S.2d 552 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), imposed May 20, 1991, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of twelve and one-half years to life imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is vacated, on the law, and the [664]*664matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The sentence imposed by the Supreme Court would be legally permissible only in the event the defendant were found to be a second felony offender. Since the record does not indicate whether the procedures set forth in CPL 400.21 for determining the defendant’s status as a second felony offender were complied with, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in accordance with CPL 400.21 (see, People v Bressingham, 148 AD2d 463). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Starkey, J.), imposed May 20, 1991, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of twelve and one-half years to life imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is vacated, on the law, and the [664]*664matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The sentence imposed by the Supreme Court would be legally permissible only in the event the defendant were found to be a second felony offender. Since the record does not indicate whether the procedures set forth in CPL 400.21 for determining the defendant’s status as a second felony offender were complied with, the sentence must be vacated and the matter remitted for resentencing in accordance with CPL 400.21 (see, People v Bressingham, 148 AD2d 463). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Rosenblatt, O’Brien and Santucci, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

196 A.D.2d 663, 602 N.Y.S.2d 552, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-leacock-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack