People v. Mendoza

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mendoza

57 A.D.2d 846, 394 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12058

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

DecidedMay 2, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 57 A.D.2d 846 (People v. Mendoza) 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. Mendoza, 57 A.D.2d 846, 394 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12058 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered April 29, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, sentence vacated, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentencing, at which time Criminal Term shall determine whether appellant is a youthful offender. The record fails to disclose whether Criminal Term made a determination as to whether appellant is a youthful offender. CPL 720.20 (subd 1) mandates that such a determination be made at the time of pronouncing sentence. This requirement may neither be ignored nor bargained away (People v Barrow, 51 AD2d 912; see, also, People v Taylor, 86 Misc 2d 445). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, 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 April 29, 1975, convicting him of robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment reversed, on the law, sentence vacated, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentencing, at which time Criminal Term shall determine whether appellant is a youthful offender. The record fails to disclose whether Criminal Term made a determination as to whether appellant is a youthful offender. CPL 720.20 (subd 1) mandates that such a determination be made at the time of pronouncing sentence. This requirement may neither be ignored nor bargained away (People v Barrow, 51 AD2d 912; see, also, People v Taylor, 86 Misc 2d 445). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Margett, Damiani and Rabin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

57 A.D.2d 846, 394 N.Y.S.2d 38, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12058, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mendoza-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack