People v. Sykes

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Sykes

150 A.D.2d 627, 541 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6859

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

DecidedMay 15, 1989

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 150 A.D.2d 627 (People v. Sykes) 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. Sykes, 150 A.D.2d 627, 541 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6859 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1989).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), imposed June 6, 1985, on remand from this court (110 AD2d 918).

Ordered that the resentence is vacated and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing upon receipt of an updated presentence report.

In view of the lapse of 2 Vs years between the date of the original sentencing and the resentencing, the sentencing court should have ordered an updated presentence report even though the defendant had been continuously incarcerated (see, People v Laster, 140 AD2d 233; People v Martinez, 118 AD2d 661; People v Hayes, 101 AD2d 893; People v Cruz, 89 AD2d 569). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Spatt and Balletta, 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 a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Goldstein, J.), imposed June 6, 1985, on remand from this court (110 AD2d 918).

Ordered that the resentence is vacated and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing upon receipt of an updated presentence report.

In view of the lapse of 2 Vs years between the date of the original sentencing and the resentencing, the sentencing court should have ordered an updated presentence report even though the defendant had been continuously incarcerated (see, People v Laster, 140 AD2d 233; People v Martinez, 118 AD2d 661; People v Hayes, 101 AD2d 893; People v Cruz, 89 AD2d 569). Mollen, P. J., Brown, Spatt and Balletta, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

150 A.D.2d 627, 541 N.Y.S.2d 496, 1989 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-sykes-nyappdiv-1989.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack