People v. Mitchell

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Mitchell

116 A.D.2d 596, 497 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51452

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

DecidedJanuary 13, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 596 (People v. Mitchell) 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. Mitchell, 116 A.D.2d 596, 497 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51452 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), imposed May 14, 1984, upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, the sentence being five years’ probation with a term of 60 days’ imprisonment running concurrently with the term of probation as a condition thereof and a mandatory surcharge of $75.

Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by waiving payment of the mandatory surcharge. As so modified, sentence affirmed.

In light of defendant’s indigency, payment of the mandatory surcharge would work an unreasonable hardship upon him (CPL 420.35). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, 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 County Court, Suffolk County (Weissman, J.), imposed May 14, 1984, upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, the sentence being five years’ probation with a term of 60 days’ imprisonment running concurrently with the term of probation as a condition thereof and a mandatory surcharge of $75.

Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by waiving payment of the mandatory surcharge. As so modified, sentence affirmed.

In light of defendant’s indigency, payment of the mandatory surcharge would work an unreasonable hardship upon him (CPL 420.35). Mollen, P. J., Mangano, Gibbons and Weinstein, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 596, 497 N.Y.S.2d 456, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 51452, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mitchell-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack