People v. Scafuri

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Scafuri

59 A.D.2d 788, 398 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13852

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

DecidedOctober 31, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 59 A.D.2d 788 (People v. Scafuri) 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. Scafuri, 59 A.D.2d 788, 398 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13852 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered November 24, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the sixth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We have considered the communications received from the Dutchess Community College and Franciscan Friars Mount Alvernia Friary in connection with the contention that the sentence imposed was excessive. In view of the fact that the sentence imposed upon appellant contains no minimum term—a factor impliedly stressed in these communications—we assume that all of the circumstances of this case will be duly considered by the Parole Board. Shapiro, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County, rendered November 24, 1976, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the sixth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment affirmed. We have considered the communications received from the Dutchess Community College and Franciscan Friars Mount Alvernia Friary in connection with the contention that the sentence imposed was excessive. In view of the fact that the sentence imposed upon appellant contains no minimum term—a factor impliedly stressed in these communications—we assume that all of the circumstances of this case will be duly considered by the Parole Board. Shapiro, J. P., Titone, Suozzi and O’Connor, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

59 A.D.2d 788, 398 N.Y.S.2d 904, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 13852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-scafuri-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack