People v. Spinella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spinella

47 A.D.2d 933, 369 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9389

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

DecidedApril 21, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 933 (People v. Spinella) 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. Spinella, 47 A.D.2d 933, 369 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9389 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed January 24, 1975, upon a conviction of assault in the third degree, on a plea of guilty, the [934]*934sentence being one year’s imprisonment. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to three years’ probation. As so modified, sentence affirmed and case remitted to the Criminal Term to fix the conditions of probation and for proceedings to direct defendant to surrender himself to said court in order that execution of the sentence, as herein modified, be commenced or resumed. In our opinion, defendant should have been sentenced to a three-year period of probation. Gulotta, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed January 24, 1975, upon a conviction of assault in the third degree, on a plea of guilty, the [934]*934sentence being one year’s imprisonment. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing it to three years’ probation. As so modified, sentence affirmed and case remitted to the Criminal Term to fix the conditions of probation and for proceedings to direct defendant to surrender himself to said court in order that execution of the sentence, as herein modified, be commenced or resumed. In our opinion, defendant should have been sentenced to a three-year period of probation. Gulotta, P. J., Rabin, Hopkins, Martuscello and Latham, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 933, 369 N.Y.S.2d 1006, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9389, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spinella-nyappdiv-1975.