People v. McFarland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McFarland

46 A.D.2d 616, 359 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4011

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

DecidedOctober 10, 1974

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 46 A.D.2d 616 (People v. McFarland) 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. McFarland, 46 A.D.2d 616, 359 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4011 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment rendered in Supreme Court, New York County, on February 8, 1973, insofar ■ as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed. The record indicates and the People concede that the People did not comply with an agreement not to make any recommendation concerning the sentences to be imposed. The People requested that the court impose concurrent maximum sentences for a D felony, which it did. A reversal and remand for resentencing is required so that, without the intervention of the People’s recommendation, independent consideration may be given to the question by the Sentencing .Judge (Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257; People v. Esposito, 32 N Y 2d .921.) To avoid any implication that the Judge may be persuaded by the prior recommendation, such resentencing should be by a different Judge. (People v. Catti, 43 A D 2d 958.) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Lane, JJ.

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

Judgment rendered in Supreme Court, New York County, on February 8, 1973, insofar ■ as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed. The record indicates and the People concede that the People did not comply with an agreement not to make any recommendation concerning the sentences to be imposed. The People requested that the court impose concurrent maximum sentences for a D felony, which it did. A reversal and remand for resentencing is required so that, without the intervention of the People’s recommendation, independent consideration may be given to the question by the Sentencing .Judge (Santobello v. New York, 404 U. S. 257; People v. Esposito, 32 N Y 2d .921.) To avoid any implication that the Judge may be persuaded by the prior recommendation, such resentencing should be by a different Judge. (People v. Catti, 43 A D 2d 958.) Concur — Nunez, J. P., Kupferman, Lupiano, Steuer and Lane, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.2d 616, 359 N.Y.S.2d 788, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4011, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcfarland-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack