People v. Louder

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Louder

40 A.D.2d 836, 337 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3491

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

DecidedNovember 6, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 836 (People v. Louder) 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. Louder, 40 A.D.2d 836, 337 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3491 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered August 25, 1971, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of not more than six years. Judgment reversed as to the sentence, on the law, and case remanded to the Criminal Term for resentencing. In our opinion, there was a failure to comply with section 207 (subd. 1) and section 208 (subd. 4, par. b) of the Mental Hygiene Law. When defendant appeared for sentencing, his counsel advised the court that defendant was an addict and “ this was the whole basis for all * * * [his] robberies.” Once the question of addiction is before the court, it cannot be brushed aside by a defendant’s failure to press for a medical examination (People v. Batson, 39 A D 2d 586). Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

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 August 25, 1971, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate prison term of not more than six years. Judgment reversed as to the sentence, on the law, and case remanded to the Criminal Term for resentencing. In our opinion, there was a failure to comply with section 207 (subd. 1) and section 208 (subd. 4, par. b) of the Mental Hygiene Law. When defendant appeared for sentencing, his counsel advised the court that defendant was an addict and “ this was the whole basis for all * * * [his] robberies.” Once the question of addiction is before the court, it cannot be brushed aside by a defendant’s failure to press for a medical examination (People v. Batson, 39 A D 2d 586). Latham, Acting P. J., Shapiro, Gulotta, Christ and Brennan, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 836, 337 N.Y.S.2d 288, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3491, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-louder-nyappdiv-1972.