People v. Trincellito

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Trincellito

34 A.D.2d 1000, 312 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4435

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

DecidedJune 22, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 1000 (People v. Trincellito) 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. Trincellito, 34 A.D.2d 1000, 312 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4435 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 10, 1969, affirmed. In our opinion, the transfer of defendant, under a reformative-type sentence, to an institution lacking in rehabilitative facilities did not per se invalidate the judgment or the indeterminate sentence imposed thereunder. Moreover, at the parole posture at which the instant coram nobis application was made, correction of the manner in which the sentence was being implemented (as provided in People ex rel. Meltsner v. Follette, 32 A D 2d 389) was not feasible. It would have entailed revocation of defendant’s then existing parole status and recommitment to Elmira Reformatory for transfer to a proper institution, which course of action was not then in defendant’s interests and was obviously not the end result sought to be achieved by him. We are also of the opinion that no adequate basis was set forth for any conclusion that the sentence, which had already commenced, was predicated on a mistake of law or fact in existence at the time of sentence so as to justify interfering therewith or with its reformative perspective. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated March 10, 1969, affirmed. In our opinion, the transfer of defendant, under a reformative-type sentence, to an institution lacking in rehabilitative facilities did not per se invalidate the judgment or the indeterminate sentence imposed thereunder. Moreover, at the parole posture at which the instant coram nobis application was made, correction of the manner in which the sentence was being implemented (as provided in People ex rel. Meltsner v. Follette, 32 A D 2d 389) was not feasible. It would have entailed revocation of defendant’s then existing parole status and recommitment to Elmira Reformatory for transfer to a proper institution, which course of action was not then in defendant’s interests and was obviously not the end result sought to be achieved by him. We are also of the opinion that no adequate basis was set forth for any conclusion that the sentence, which had already commenced, was predicated on a mistake of law or fact in existence at the time of sentence so as to justify interfering therewith or with its reformative perspective. Hopkins, Acting P. J., Munder, Martuscello, Brennan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 1000, 312 N.Y.S.2d 806, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4435, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-trincellito-nyappdiv-1970.