People v. Lopez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Lopez

51 A.D.2d 809, 380 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11395

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

DecidedFebruary 23, 1976

StatusPublished

This text of 51 A.D.2d 809 (People v. Lopez) 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. Lopez, 51 A.D.2d 809, 380 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11395 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1976).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed June 10, 1974, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty. Sentence affirmed. No opinion. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Christ, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., dissents and votes to reverse the sentence and to remand the case to Criminal Term for resentence, with the following memorandum: In my view, from the colloquy between the sentencing court and defendant, it seems clear that the court was of the opinion that the minimum term which it could impose was five years and that it could not impose a minimum term of less than five years. Under the circumstances, defendant should be remanded for resentence.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed June 10, 1974, upon his conviction of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty. Sentence affirmed. No opinion. Martuscello, Acting P. J., Christ, Titone and Hawkins, JJ., concur; Shapiro, J., dissents and votes to reverse the sentence and to remand the case to Criminal Term for resentence, with the following memorandum: In my view, from the colloquy between the sentencing court and defendant, it seems clear that the court was of the opinion that the minimum term which it could impose was five years and that it could not impose a minimum term of less than five years. Under the circumstances, defendant should be remanded for resentence.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

51 A.D.2d 809, 380 N.Y.S.2d 626, 1976 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11395, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-lopez-nyappdiv-1976.