People v. Pennington

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pennington

47 A.D.2d 962, 367 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9434

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

DecidedApril 28, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 47 A.D.2d 962 (People v. Pennington) 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. Pennington, 47 A.D.2d 962, 367 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9434 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed April 10, 1973, upon a plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree. The sentence was an indeterminate prison term of a maximum of 10 years. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentence in accordance with the views herein set forth. Prior to the imposition of sentence, defendant was asked only whether there was any legal cause why the judgment of the court should not be pronounced upon him. The allocution requirement set forth in CPL 380.50 is not satisfied by such inquiry (People v Cummings, 45 AD2d 763). We do not find the sentence to be excessive. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, 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 brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed April 10, 1973, upon a plea of guilty of attempted robbery in the first degree. The sentence was an indeterminate prison term of a maximum of 10 years. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentence in accordance with the views herein set forth. Prior to the imposition of sentence, defendant was asked only whether there was any legal cause why the judgment of the court should not be pronounced upon him. The allocution requirement set forth in CPL 380.50 is not satisfied by such inquiry (People v Cummings, 45 AD2d 763). We do not find the sentence to be excessive. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Christ, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 962, 367 N.Y.S.2d 300, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9434, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pennington-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack