People v. Lofton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lofton

58 A.D.2d 610, 395 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12665

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

DecidedJune 13, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 610 (People v. Lofton) 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. Lofton, 58 A.D.2d 610, 395 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12665 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 28, 1975, convicting her of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under separate indictments, and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, under a third indictment, upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion for a hearing to determine whether she had provided "material assistance”. Judgment affirmed. The defendant-appellant seeks to distinguish the decision in People v Eason (40 NY2d 297) on the fact that, at bar, co-operation was provided after a plea of guilty and with the under[611]*611standing that if material assistance were rendered, the District Attorney would consider recommending lifetime probation pursuant to the statute (Penal Law, § 65.00, subd 1, par [b]). However, the defendant does not claim that a promise of such a recommendation was made or relied upon, nor would the record support such a claim (cf. Santobello v New York, 404 US 257). On this record, the decisions in People v Etson (39 NY2d 1005) and People v Eason (supra) are dispositive. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur. [81 Misc 2d 572.]

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered February 28, 1975, convicting her of two counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, under separate indictments, and one count of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, under a third indictment, upon her pleas of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial of defendant’s motion for a hearing to determine whether she had provided "material assistance”. Judgment affirmed. The defendant-appellant seeks to distinguish the decision in People v Eason (40 NY2d 297) on the fact that, at bar, co-operation was provided after a plea of guilty and with the under[611]*611standing that if material assistance were rendered, the District Attorney would consider recommending lifetime probation pursuant to the statute (Penal Law, § 65.00, subd 1, par [b]). However, the defendant does not claim that a promise of such a recommendation was made or relied upon, nor would the record support such a claim (cf. Santobello v New York, 404 US 257). On this record, the decisions in People v Etson (39 NY2d 1005) and People v Eason (supra) are dispositive. Hopkins, J. P., Rabin, Hawkins and O’Connor, JJ., concur. [81 Misc 2d 572.]

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 610, 395 N.Y.S.2d 226, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lofton-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack