People v. Pascal

139 A.D.2d 449, 526 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedApril 21, 1988
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 139 A.D.2d 449 (People v. Pascal) 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. Pascal, 139 A.D.2d 449, 526 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1988).

Opinion

— Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Burton B. Roberts, J.), rendered May 12, 1986, convicting defendant on a plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree, robbery in the second degree, criminal mischief in the fourth degree and grand larceny in the third degree, and sentencing defendant to indeterminate terms of from 3 to 9 years’ imprisonment on his convictions for robbery in the first degree, burglary in the first degree, criminal use of a firearm in the first degree and robbery in the second degree, 1 year on his conviction for criminal mischief, and 1 to 3 years on his conviction for grand larceny, all sentences to run concurrently, unanimously modified, on the law, to reduce the sentence imposed on the conviction for robbery in the second degree to a term of Wz to 4 Vi years, and to reduce the sentence imposed on the conviction for grand larceny in the third degree to 1 year, and otherwise affirmed.

As the People appropriately acknowledge, there was an inadvertent failure in the sentences imposed on the defendant for robbery in the second degree and for grand larceny in the third degree to conform to the sentencing promises made at the time the defendant entered his plea. Accordingly, the sentences imposed with respect to those charges must be modified as indicated.

We find no merit in defendant’s further contention that the plea allocution, which was quite detailed and comprehensive, was defective because of a failure specifically to inform defendant that he was entitled to representation by counsel at the trial. Concur — Murphy, P. J., Sandler, Asch, Milonas and Smith, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Villanueva
219 A.D.2d 561 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1995)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
139 A.D.2d 449, 526 N.Y.S.2d 1007, 1988 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4417, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pascal-nyappdiv-1988.