People v. Yant

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yant

251 A.D.2d 435, 674 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6565

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

DecidedJune 8, 1998

StatusPublished

This text of 251 A.D.2d 435 (People v. Yant) 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. Yant, 251 A.D.2d 435, 674 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6565 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered December 4, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

In People v Yant (223 AD2d 747), this Court vacated the sentence imposed upon the appellant and remitted the matter to the County Court, Dutchess County, for resentencing based on the misapprehension by the court regarding its discretion under Penal Law § 70.25 (4) to impose concurrent sentences. However, upon resentencing, the court improperly imposed a sentence which was lower than the minimum sentence authorized by law. The People thereafter timely moved pursuant to CPL 440.40 (1) to set aside the sentence. The People’s motion was granted, and the defendant was then sentenced to the minimum authorized sentence. We reject the defendant’s contention that he should again be sentenced to the sentence [436]*436imposed at the first resentencing. Since the defendant received the minimum sentence authorized by law, and since the sentence imposed was less than that originally promised as part of the plea agreement, the defendant has no basis to complain (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered December 4, 1996, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

In People v Yant (223 AD2d 747), this Court vacated the sentence imposed upon the appellant and remitted the matter to the County Court, Dutchess County, for resentencing based on the misapprehension by the court regarding its discretion under Penal Law § 70.25 (4) to impose concurrent sentences. However, upon resentencing, the court improperly imposed a sentence which was lower than the minimum sentence authorized by law. The People thereafter timely moved pursuant to CPL 440.40 (1) to set aside the sentence. The People’s motion was granted, and the defendant was then sentenced to the minimum authorized sentence. We reject the defendant’s contention that he should again be sentenced to the sentence [436]*436imposed at the first resentencing. Since the defendant received the minimum sentence authorized by law, and since the sentence imposed was less than that originally promised as part of the plea agreement, the defendant has no basis to complain (see, People v Kazepis, 101 AD2d 816). Mangano, P. J., Miller, Pizzuto and Krausman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

251 A.D.2d 435, 674 N.Y.S.2d 698, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6565, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yant-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack