People v. Taylor

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Taylor

116 A.D.2d 678, 497 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48176

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

DecidedJanuary 21, 1986

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 116 A.D.2d 678 (People v. Taylor) 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. Taylor, 116 A.D.2d 678, 497 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48176 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), rendered June 21, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed thereon. As so modified, judgment affirmed and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing, at which proceeding new counsel shall be appointed to represent defendant.

On the day of sentencing, defendant’s counsel, who was then "on trial” elsewhere, was in telephonic communication with the court. Nevertheless, defendant in effect had to proceed pro se on his application to withdraw his guilty plea made at the time of sentencing. Under these circumstances it was improper to impose sentence upon the defendant in the absence of his counsel (cf. People v Hannigan, 7 NY2d 317; People v Boyd, 22 NY2d 707; People v Perez, 63 AD2d 911). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, 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 Supreme Court, Kings County (Coffinas, J.), rendered June 21, 1984, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Judgment modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed thereon. As so modified, judgment affirmed and matter remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing, at which proceeding new counsel shall be appointed to represent defendant.

On the day of sentencing, defendant’s counsel, who was then "on trial” elsewhere, was in telephonic communication with the court. Nevertheless, defendant in effect had to proceed pro se on his application to withdraw his guilty plea made at the time of sentencing. Under these circumstances it was improper to impose sentence upon the defendant in the absence of his counsel (cf. People v Hannigan, 7 NY2d 317; People v Boyd, 22 NY2d 707; People v Perez, 63 AD2d 911). Mangano, J. P., Bracken, Weinstein, Lawrence and Kooper, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.2d 678, 497 N.Y.S.2d 746, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 48176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-taylor-nyappdiv-1986.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack