People v. Matthew John G.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Matthew John G.

60 A.D.2d 919, 401 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9975

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 60 A.D.2d 919 (People v. Matthew John G.) 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. Matthew John G., 60 A.D.2d 919, 401 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9975 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from three sentences of the County Court, Suffolk County, each imposed January 6,1977, upon his adjudication as a youthful offender under Indictments Nos. 1378-75, 1379-75 and 1380-75, the sentences being indeterminate terms of imprisonment, each with a maximum of four years, to be served consecutively. Sentences modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision that they shall be served consecutively and substituting therefor a provision that they shall run concurrently. As so modified, sentences affirmed. If the sentencing court believed that the defendant should be imprisoned for a maximum period of 12 years, it should not have afforded him youthful [920]*920offender treatment. In sentencing him as a youthful offender to three consecutive four-year terms, the court exceeded its powers (see Penal Law, § 60.02; see, also, People ex rel. Fitzgibbons v Krueger, 66 Misc 2d 146). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from three sentences of the County Court, Suffolk County, each imposed January 6,1977, upon his adjudication as a youthful offender under Indictments Nos. 1378-75, 1379-75 and 1380-75, the sentences being indeterminate terms of imprisonment, each with a maximum of four years, to be served consecutively. Sentences modified, on the law, by deleting therefrom the provision that they shall be served consecutively and substituting therefor a provision that they shall run concurrently. As so modified, sentences affirmed. If the sentencing court believed that the defendant should be imprisoned for a maximum period of 12 years, it should not have afforded him youthful [920]*920offender treatment. In sentencing him as a youthful offender to three consecutive four-year terms, the court exceeded its powers (see Penal Law, § 60.02; see, also, People ex rel. Fitzgibbons v Krueger, 66 Misc 2d 146). Rabin, J. P., Gulotta, Shapiro and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

60 A.D.2d 919, 401 N.Y.S.2d 575, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9975, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-matthew-john-g-nyappdiv-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack