People v. Miles

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Miles

459 N.E.2d 1286, 61 N.Y.2d 635, 471 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3631

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedDecember 15, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 459 N.E.2d 1286 (People v. Miles) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Miles, 459 N.E.2d 1286, 61 N.Y.2d 635, 471 N.Y.S.2d 849, 1983 N.Y. LEXIS 3631 (N.Y. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

[637]*637OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Although we agree with the defendant that People v Farrar (52 NY2d 302) is not binding on the Appellate Division (see People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513), the fact remains that a majority at the Appellate Division decided not to grant the defendant any discretionary relief with respect to his sentence. That determination is not subject to further review in this court (see, e.g., People v Discala, 45 NY2d 38; cf. People v Rytel, 284 NY 242).

Jasen, J. (concurring in result only). While I agree that the Appellate Division’s determination not to grant defendant any discretionary relief with respect to his sentence is not subject to further review in this court, I do not agree that People v Farrar (52 NY2d 302) is not binding on the Appellate Division. (See dissent in People v Thompson, 60 NY2d 513, 522.)

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jones, Wachtler, Meyer, Simons and Kaye concur; Judge Jasen concurs in result only in a separate memorandum.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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