Rice v. Goord

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Rice v. Goord

35 A.D.3d 867, 825 N.Y.S.2d 376

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

DecidedDecember 26, 2006

StatusPublished

This text of 35 A.D.3d 867 (Rice v. Goord) 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

Rice v. Goord, 35 A.D.3d 867, 825 N.Y.S.2d 376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents dated September 20, 2004, which calculated the length of the petitioner’s sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J), dated August 12, 2005, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner’s status as a persistent violent felony offender required that the sentence imposed run consecutively to the undischarged sentence on his prior conviction (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]; Matter of Rivera v Goord, 24 AD3d 679, 680 [2005]; People v Castagna, 18 AD3d 475 [2005]; People v Fucci, 16 AD3d 597 [2005]; Matter of Madison v Goord, 274 AD2d 483, 484 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Rivera, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

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

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to review a determination of the respondents dated September 20, 2004, which calculated the length of the petitioner’s sentence of imprisonment, the petitioner appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Dutchess County (Sproat, J), dated August 12, 2005, which, in effect, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The petitioner’s status as a persistent violent felony offender required that the sentence imposed run consecutively to the undischarged sentence on his prior conviction (see Penal Law § 70.25 [2-a]; Matter of Rivera v Goord, 24 AD3d 679, 680 [2005]; People v Castagna, 18 AD3d 475 [2005]; People v Fucci, 16 AD3d 597 [2005]; Matter of Madison v Goord, 274 AD2d 483, 484 [2000]). Schmidt, J.P., Crane, Rivera, Skelos and Lunn, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

35 A.D.3d 867, 825 N.Y.S.2d 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/rice-v-goord-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack