People v. Tolliver

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tolliver

49 A.D.2d 930, 373 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11201

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

DecidedOctober 20, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 49 A.D.2d 930 (People v. Tolliver) 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. Tolliver, 49 A.D.2d 930, 373 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11201 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed May 1, 1973, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree, on a plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term not to exceed eight years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the maximum period of imprisonment to seven years. As so modified, sentence affirmed. At the time his plea was taken by Criminal Term, defendant was promised that he would receive whatever sentence the probation department recommended, to a maximum of eight years, or otherwise be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant agreed and pled guilty. The probation department report recommended that defendant be incarcerated, but that the maximum sentence imposed should be seven years. In imposing a maximum sentence of eight years, Criminal Tevm failed to adhere to its promise. Accordingly, we have reduced defendant’s sentence in compliance therewith. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, 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 brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed May 1, 1973, upon his conviction of robbery in the first degree, on a plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term not to exceed eight years. Sentence modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the maximum period of imprisonment to seven years. As so modified, sentence affirmed. At the time his plea was taken by Criminal Term, defendant was promised that he would receive whatever sentence the probation department recommended, to a maximum of eight years, or otherwise be permitted to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant agreed and pled guilty. The probation department report recommended that defendant be incarcerated, but that the maximum sentence imposed should be seven years. In imposing a maximum sentence of eight years, Criminal Tevm failed to adhere to its promise. Accordingly, we have reduced defendant’s sentence in compliance therewith. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 930, 373 N.Y.S.2d 835, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11201, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tolliver-nyappdiv-1975.