People v. Meadows

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Meadows

114 A.D.2d 1044, 495 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54090

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

DecidedNovember 25, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 114 A.D.2d 1044 (People v. Meadows) 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. Meadows, 114 A.D.2d 1044, 495 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54090 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.), imposed December 23, 1981, upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree, the sentence being a term of imprisonment of 3 Vi to 7 years.

Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The sentencing minutes do not indicate compliance with CPL 400.21, i.e., a judicial finding of a prior predicate felony (see, People v Owens, 58 AD2d 898). The record does not disclose that defendant admitted the existence of a prior felony conviction, and the error was, therefore, not harmless (cf. People v Bouyea, 64 NY2d 1140).

Furthermore, the record of the plea proceedings discloses some confusion as to whether defendant was to be sentenced as a second or a first felony offender upon conviction of robbery in the second degree, a class C violent offense (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [b]). While the court advised defendant that he faced a minimum of one half the maximum imposed, thus indicating that defendant would be sentenced as a second felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [4] [b]), the court also advised defendant of the maximum range applicable to a first felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [2] [a]; [3] [b]).

Accordingly, the question of whether a proper minimum sentence had been imposed should be reviewed upon resentencing. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, 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 a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Savarese, J.), imposed December 23, 1981, upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree, the sentence being a term of imprisonment of 3 Vi to 7 years.

Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remitted to Criminal Term for further proceedings consistent herewith.

The sentencing minutes do not indicate compliance with CPL 400.21, i.e., a judicial finding of a prior predicate felony (see, People v Owens, 58 AD2d 898). The record does not disclose that defendant admitted the existence of a prior felony conviction, and the error was, therefore, not harmless (cf. People v Bouyea, 64 NY2d 1140).

Furthermore, the record of the plea proceedings discloses some confusion as to whether defendant was to be sentenced as a second or a first felony offender upon conviction of robbery in the second degree, a class C violent offense (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [1] [b]). While the court advised defendant that he faced a minimum of one half the maximum imposed, thus indicating that defendant would be sentenced as a second felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.06 [4] [b]), the court also advised defendant of the maximum range applicable to a first felony offender (see, Penal Law § 70.02 [2] [a]; [3] [b]).

Accordingly, the question of whether a proper minimum sentence had been imposed should be reviewed upon resentencing. Mollen, P. J., Lazer, Mangano and Gibbons, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

114 A.D.2d 1044, 495 N.Y.S.2d 484, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 54090, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-meadows-nyappdiv-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack