People v. Perryman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Perryman

40 A.D.2d 1007, 338 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069

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

DecidedDecember 18, 1972

StatusPublished

This text of 40 A.D.2d 1007 (People v. Perryman) 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. Perryman, 40 A.D.2d 1007, 338 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1972).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by hk brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed November 10, 1971. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to the Criminal Term for resentencing in compliance with section 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The record reveals that although defendant was certified an addict following an examination pursuant to section 207 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the Criminal Term failed to comply with the provisions of section 208 in imposing sentence. Furthermore, the sentencing court was influenced by a pretrial conference with the prosecutor and defense counsel, which was not recorded. In our opinion, the dkcretion of the sentencing court cannot be adequately reviewed; and, upon resentencing, the facts affecting the court’s determination should be placed on the record, in defendant’s presence, with an opportunity to defendant to make any explanation in connection therewith that he deems appropriate. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by hk brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed November 10, 1971. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to the Criminal Term for resentencing in compliance with section 208 of the Mental Hygiene Law. The record reveals that although defendant was certified an addict following an examination pursuant to section 207 of the Mental Hygiene Law, the Criminal Term failed to comply with the provisions of section 208 in imposing sentence. Furthermore, the sentencing court was influenced by a pretrial conference with the prosecutor and defense counsel, which was not recorded. In our opinion, the dkcretion of the sentencing court cannot be adequately reviewed; and, upon resentencing, the facts affecting the court’s determination should be placed on the record, in defendant’s presence, with an opportunity to defendant to make any explanation in connection therewith that he deems appropriate. Shapiro, Acting P. J., Gulotta, Christ, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

40 A.D.2d 1007, 338 N.Y.S.2d 766, 1972 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3069, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-perryman-nyappdiv-1972.