People v. Pienczykowski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pienczykowski

12 A.D.3d 382, 783 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12912

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

DecidedNovember 1, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 12 A.D.3d 382 (People v. Pienczykowski) 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. Pienczykowski, 12 A.D.3d 382, 783 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12912 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), both rendered June 28, 2001, convicting him of burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 500/00, and burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 799/00, upon his pleas of guilty, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of l1 Is to 4 years on each conviction.

Ordered that the judgments are modified, on the law, to provide that the sentences shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgments are affirmed.

The County Court exceeded its authority in sentencing the defendant, as a youthful offender, to consecutive sentences in excess of four years (see Penal Law § 60.02 [2]; § 70.00 [2] [e]; People v Lucci, 193 AD2d 623, 624 [1993]; People v Simmons, 188 AD2d 668, 669 [1992]). Thus, we modify the sentences accordingly. Santucci, J.P., Smith, S. Miller, Cozier and Fisher, JJ., concur.

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

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Orange County (Berry, J.), both rendered June 28, 2001, convicting him of burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 500/00, and burglary in the second degree under indictment No. 799/00, upon his pleas of guilty, and sentencing him to consecutive indeterminate terms of imprisonment of l1 Is to 4 years on each conviction.

Ordered that the judgments are modified, on the law, to provide that the sentences shall run concurrently with each other; as so modified, the judgments are affirmed.

The County Court exceeded its authority in sentencing the defendant, as a youthful offender, to consecutive sentences in excess of four years (see Penal Law § 60.02 [2]; § 70.00 [2] [e]; People v Lucci, 193 AD2d 623, 624 [1993]; People v Simmons, 188 AD2d 668, 669 [1992]). Thus, we modify the sentences accordingly. Santucci, J.P., Smith, S. Miller, Cozier and Fisher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

12 A.D.3d 382, 783 N.Y.S.2d 301, 2004 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12912, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pienczykowski-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack