People v. Styles

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Styles

285 A.D.2d 564, 727 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7454

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

DecidedJuly 16, 2001

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 285 A.D.2d 564 (People v. Styles) 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. Styles, 285 A.D.2d 564, 727 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7454 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), imposed February 17, 2000, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

The sentencing court may properly consider evidence of other [565]*565crimes for which the defendant was not tried provided the court is satisfied that “the information upon which it bases the sentence is reliable and accurate” (People v Naranjo, 89 NY2d 1047, 1049; see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712). The court was entitled to treat the defendant’s admission to criminal activity, made under oath in an unrelated proceeding, as reliable (see, People v Migliore, 150 AD2d 169; People v Marrero, 110 AD2d 785). Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Goldstein, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (J. Goldberg, J.), imposed February 17, 2000, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted sale of a controlled substance in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

The sentencing court may properly consider evidence of other [565]*565crimes for which the defendant was not tried provided the court is satisfied that “the information upon which it bases the sentence is reliable and accurate” (People v Naranjo, 89 NY2d 1047, 1049; see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702, 712). The court was entitled to treat the defendant’s admission to criminal activity, made under oath in an unrelated proceeding, as reliable (see, People v Migliore, 150 AD2d 169; People v Marrero, 110 AD2d 785). Bracken, P. J., Ritter, Goldstein, Schmidt and Townes, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

285 A.D.2d 564, 727 N.Y.S.2d 904, 2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7454, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-styles-nyappdiv-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack