People v. Saunders

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Saunders

37 A.D.3d 1149, 827 N.Y.S.2d 915

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

DecidedFebruary 2, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 37 A.D.3d 1149 (People v. Saunders) 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. Saunders, 37 A.D.3d 1149, 827 N.Y.S.2d 915 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered June 20, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree and aggravated criminal contempt.

[1150]*1150It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by directing that the sentence of imprisonment imposed for attempted assault in the second degree and aggravated criminal contempt shall be a condition of and run concurrently with the sentence of probation and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§110.00, 120.05 [2]) and aggravated criminal contempt (§ 215.52). As the People correctly concede, County Court erred in sentencing defendant to identical sentences on each count, consisting of a five-year term of probation, to run consecutively to a six-month term of imprisonment. Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.01 (2) (d) and § 65.00 (3) (a) (i), the court should have imposed a sentence of imprisonment on each count as a condition of and to run concurrently with the sentence of probation (see People v Ladd, 224 AD2d 881, 883 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 893 [1996]; People v Loughlin, 154 AD2d 552, 553 [1989], affd 76 NY2d 804 [1990]). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Present—Scudder, PJ., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Erie County Court (Michael F. Pietruszka, J.), rendered June 20, 2005. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree and aggravated criminal contempt.

[1150]*1150It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously modified on the law by directing that the sentence of imprisonment imposed for attempted assault in the second degree and aggravated criminal contempt shall be a condition of and run concurrently with the sentence of probation and as modified the judgment is affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§110.00, 120.05 [2]) and aggravated criminal contempt (§ 215.52). As the People correctly concede, County Court erred in sentencing defendant to identical sentences on each count, consisting of a five-year term of probation, to run consecutively to a six-month term of imprisonment. Pursuant to Penal Law § 60.01 (2) (d) and § 65.00 (3) (a) (i), the court should have imposed a sentence of imprisonment on each count as a condition of and to run concurrently with the sentence of probation (see People v Ladd, 224 AD2d 881, 883 [1996], affd 89 NY2d 893 [1996]; People v Loughlin, 154 AD2d 552, 553 [1989], affd 76 NY2d 804 [1990]). We therefore modify the judgment accordingly. Present—Scudder, PJ., Martoche, Smith, Peradotto and Pine, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 A.D.3d 1149, 827 N.Y.S.2d 915, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-saunders-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack