People v. Polo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Polo

62 A.D.2d 974, 404 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11006

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

DecidedApril 27, 1978

StatusPublished

This text of 62 A.D.2d 974 (People v. Polo) 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. Polo, 62 A.D.2d 974, 404 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11006 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered June 20, 1977, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of not less than one and one-third and not more than four years, is unanimously modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by striking the provision for a minimum term of imprisonment in the court’s sentence, and otherwise affirmed. The court failed to comply with the requirement of section 70.00 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Penal Law that when the minimum [975]*975period of imprisonment is fixed by the court pursuant to that statutory provision "the court shall set forth in the record the reasons for its action”; and we have seen nothing that indicates that this is a case in which the court should have fixed a minimum period of imprisonment. Concur—Silver-man, J. P., Evans, Fein, Lynch and Sullivan, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered June 20, 1977, convicting defendant of assault in the second degree and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of not less than one and one-third and not more than four years, is unanimously modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by striking the provision for a minimum term of imprisonment in the court’s sentence, and otherwise affirmed. The court failed to comply with the requirement of section 70.00 (subd 3, par [b]) of the Penal Law that when the minimum [975]*975period of imprisonment is fixed by the court pursuant to that statutory provision "the court shall set forth in the record the reasons for its action”; and we have seen nothing that indicates that this is a case in which the court should have fixed a minimum period of imprisonment. Concur—Silver-man, J. P., Evans, Fein, Lynch and Sullivan, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

62 A.D.2d 974, 404 N.Y.S.2d 539, 1978 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11006, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-polo-nyappdiv-1978.