People v. Raymond W.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Raymond W.

61 A.D.3d 1007, 876 N.Y.S.2d 899

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

DecidedApril 28, 2009

StatusPublished

This text of 61 A.D.3d 1007 (People v. Raymond W.) 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. Raymond W., 61 A.D.3d 1007, 876 N.Y.S.2d 899 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered March 8, 2007, finding him to be a youthful offender upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a youthful offender, to consecutive terms of imprisonment of V-k years to 4 years.

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

Having found the defendant to be a youthful offender, the Supreme Court was without authority to impose consecutive sentences with an aggregate total in excess of four years (see Penal Law § 60.02 [2]; § 70.00 [2], [3]; CPL 720.20 [1] [a]; People v Ralph W.C., 21 AD3d 904 [2005]; People v Richard P., 12 AD3d 382 [2004]; People v Lucci, 193 AD2d 623, 624 [1993]; People v Simmons, 188 AD2d 668 [1992]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mangano, Jr., J.), rendered March 8, 2007, finding him to be a youthful offender upon his plea of guilty to robbery in the second degree and attempted robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him, as a youthful offender, to consecutive terms of imprisonment of V-k years to 4 years.

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

Having found the defendant to be a youthful offender, the Supreme Court was without authority to impose consecutive sentences with an aggregate total in excess of four years (see Penal Law § 60.02 [2]; § 70.00 [2], [3]; CPL 720.20 [1] [a]; People v Ralph W.C., 21 AD3d 904 [2005]; People v Richard P., 12 AD3d 382 [2004]; People v Lucci, 193 AD2d 623, 624 [1993]; People v Simmons, 188 AD2d 668 [1992]). Spolzino, J.P., Santucci, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

61 A.D.3d 1007, 876 N.Y.S.2d 899, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-raymond-w-nyappdiv-2009.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack