People v. Pacheco

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pacheco

58 A.D.2d 549, 396 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554

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

DecidedJune 28, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 58 A.D.2d 549 (People v. Pacheco) 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. Pacheco, 58 A.D.2d 549, 396 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County, of September 19, 1975, convicting defendant on his pleas of guilty of robbery in the second degree on each of two indictments (to cover also a third indictment), and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment not to exceed six years, are unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding the case to the Supreme Court for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed. CPL 390.50 (subd 2) (eff Sept. 1, 1975) gave to defendant’s attorney the right to see the presentence report, and the denial of this request was error. The request was made at the commencement of the sentencing proceeding, and defendant’s attorney explicitly said that she was not asking for an adjournment. In the circumstances, the request was not so late or obstructive as to warrant its denial. Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman and Markewich, JJ.

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

— Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County, of September 19, 1975, convicting defendant on his pleas of guilty of robbery in the second degree on each of two indictments (to cover also a third indictment), and sentencing him to concurrent terms of imprisonment not to exceed six years, are unanimously modified, on the law, to the extent of vacating the sentence and remanding the case to the Supreme Court for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed. CPL 390.50 (subd 2) (eff Sept. 1, 1975) gave to defendant’s attorney the right to see the presentence report, and the denial of this request was error. The request was made at the commencement of the sentencing proceeding, and defendant’s attorney explicitly said that she was not asking for an adjournment. In the circumstances, the request was not so late or obstructive as to warrant its denial. Concur— Lupiano, J. P., Birns, Silverman and Markewich, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 549, 396 N.Y.S.2d 13, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12554, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pacheco-nyappdiv-1977.