People v. Villaneuba

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Villaneuba

49 A.D.2d 930, 374 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11202

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. Villaneuba) 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. Villaneuba, 49 A.D.2d 930, 374 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11202 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 11, 1970, upon his conviction of murder in the second degree, on a plea of guilty, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of from 25 years to life. Amended judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to an indeterminate term of from 20 years to life. As so modified, amended judgment affirmed. In the interest of justice, we are modifying the sentence in this case so that it conforms to the sentence ultimately given to the codefendant Ramos (see People v Ramos, 35 AD2d 732), to which the District Attorney consents. 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 from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 11, 1970, upon his conviction of murder in the second degree, on a plea of guilty, and imposing an indeterminate sentence of from 25 years to life. Amended judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to an indeterminate term of from 20 years to life. As so modified, amended judgment affirmed. In the interest of justice, we are modifying the sentence in this case so that it conforms to the sentence ultimately given to the codefendant Ramos (see People v Ramos, 35 AD2d 732), to which the District Attorney consents. Latham, Acting P. J., Cohalan, Brennan, Munder and Shapiro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 930, 374 N.Y.S.2d 41, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11202, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-villaneuba-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack