People v. Spence

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spence

203 A.D.2d 497, 610 N.Y.S.2d 595

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

DecidedApril 18, 1994

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 203 A.D.2d 497 (People v. Spence) 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. Spence, 203 A.D.2d 497, 610 N.Y.S.2d 595 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1994).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Feinberg, J.), rendered December 1, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (11 counts), robbery in the second degree (6 counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (3 counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (3 counts), assault in the second degree (2 counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (5 counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (5 counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that he was denied due process. At the plea proceeding, the court warned the defendant that, if he was arrested before sentencing, it would enhance his sentence. The court then asked the defendant if he wished to plead guilty, and the defendant said that he did. When the defendant was subsequently arrested for another robbery, the court held a hearing in order to determine whether there was a legitimate basis for the arrest. The court allowed the defendant wide latitude to call witnesses and to explain the circumstances of his subsequent arrest. This hearing was sufficient to meet the demands of due process (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702). Moreover, based on our review of the record, there clearly was a legitimate basis for the arrest.

The sentence that was imposed is not excessive. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, 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 (Feinberg, J.), rendered December 1, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the first degree (11 counts), robbery in the second degree (6 counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (3 counts), criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (3 counts), assault in the second degree (2 counts), grand larceny in the fourth degree (5 counts), and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree (5 counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We disagree with the defendant’s contention that he was denied due process. At the plea proceeding, the court warned the defendant that, if he was arrested before sentencing, it would enhance his sentence. The court then asked the defendant if he wished to plead guilty, and the defendant said that he did. When the defendant was subsequently arrested for another robbery, the court held a hearing in order to determine whether there was a legitimate basis for the arrest. The court allowed the defendant wide latitude to call witnesses and to explain the circumstances of his subsequent arrest. This hearing was sufficient to meet the demands of due process (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702). Moreover, based on our review of the record, there clearly was a legitimate basis for the arrest.

The sentence that was imposed is not excessive. Bracken, J. P., Miller, Copertino, Santucci and Altman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

203 A.D.2d 497, 610 N.Y.S.2d 595, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spence-nyappdiv-1994.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack