People v. Yant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yant

223 A.D.2d 747, 637 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 678

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided January 29, 1996·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 6, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for resentencing.

The sentencing court’s misapprehension regarding its discretion, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (4), to impose a sentence of imprisonment that is to run concurrently with a sentence previously imposed by a court of another jurisdiction requires that the defendant be resentenced (see, People v Vega, 181 AD2d 635; People v Jeffries, 166 AD2d 665, 666).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention, [748] which is raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered January 6, 1995, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the County Court, Dutchess County, for resentencing.

The sentencing court’s misapprehension regarding its discretion, pursuant to Penal Law § 70.25 (4), to impose a sentence of imprisonment that is to run concurrently with a sentence previously imposed by a court of another jurisdiction requires that the defendant be resentenced (see, People v Vega, 181 AD2d 635; People v Jeffries, 166 AD2d 665, 666).

We have examined the defendant’s remaining contention, [748] which is raised in his supplemental pro se brief, and find it to be without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

People v. Yant, 223 A.D.2d 747, 637 N.Y.S.2d 468, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 678 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

223 A.D.2d 747 (People v. Yant) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related