People v. Rives

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rives

88 A.D.2d 787, 451 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17046

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

DecidedMay 21, 1982

StatusPublished

This text of 88 A.D.2d 787 (People v. Rives) 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. Rives, 88 A.D.2d 787, 451 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17046 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The People agree that at the taking of the pleas the court promised that it would sentence defendant to one and one-half to three years on his plea to criminal possession of stolen property, second degree, and that the court’s subsequent sentencing on that charge of two to four years was inadvertent error. We therefore modify the sentence on that charge from two to four years to one and one-half to three years to run concurrently with the sentence of four to eight years on the conviction of attempted robbery, first degree (see People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 241, cert den 419 US 1122, citing Santobello v New York, 404 US 257, 260). There is no merit to the other points raised on appeal. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Gale, J. — attempted robbery, first degree and another offense.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Denman and Moule, JJ.

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

— Judgment unanimously modified and, as modified, affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The People agree that at the taking of the pleas the court promised that it would sentence defendant to one and one-half to three years on his plea to criminal possession of stolen property, second degree, and that the court’s subsequent sentencing on that charge of two to four years was inadvertent error. We therefore modify the sentence on that charge from two to four years to one and one-half to three years to run concurrently with the sentence of four to eight years on the conviction of attempted robbery, first degree (see People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 241, cert den 419 US 1122, citing Santobello v New York, 404 US 257, 260). There is no merit to the other points raised on appeal. (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Gale, J. — attempted robbery, first degree and another offense.) Present — Simons, J. P., Hancock, Jr., Callahan, Denman and Moule, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

88 A.D.2d 787, 451 N.Y.S.2d 1022, 1982 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 17046, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rives-nyappdiv-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack