People v. Victor T.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Victor T.

56 A.D.2d 584, 391 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10638

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

DecidedFebruary 7, 1977

StatusPublished

This text of 56 A.D.2d 584 (People v. Victor T.) 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. Victor T., 56 A.D.2d 584, 391 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10638 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the People from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed March 23, 1976, upon an adjudication that defendant was a youthful offender, after his plea of guilty to the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Sentence affirmed. Under the facts, the granting of youthful offender status was an act of discretion. Accordingly, the sentence appealed from was not invalid as a matter of law (see CPL 720.20; 450.20, subd 4). To the extent that CPL 720.10 conditions eligibility upon the highest count of the accusatory instrument, it is unconstitutional (see People v Carlos S., 40 NY2d 990, revg 51 AD2d 1 [for the applicable reasons stated in the dissenting opn of Mr. Justice Rabin at the App Div]; see, also, People v Victor M., 56 AD2d 581). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the People from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed March 23, 1976, upon an adjudication that defendant was a youthful offender, after his plea of guilty to the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree. Sentence affirmed. Under the facts, the granting of youthful offender status was an act of discretion. Accordingly, the sentence appealed from was not invalid as a matter of law (see CPL 720.20; 450.20, subd 4). To the extent that CPL 720.10 conditions eligibility upon the highest count of the accusatory instrument, it is unconstitutional (see People v Carlos S., 40 NY2d 990, revg 51 AD2d 1 [for the applicable reasons stated in the dissenting opn of Mr. Justice Rabin at the App Div]; see, also, People v Victor M., 56 AD2d 581). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Rabin and Hawkins, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

56 A.D.2d 584, 391 N.Y.S.2d 190, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10638, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-victor-t-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack