LegalCaseDocs.com
shopping cart  
  |     
Search
 

 
New Visitors


 VeriSign Secure Site

 Get Adobe Reader

PEOPLE v WILIAMS Click to find out why . . .



Keywords & Phrases
CourtCode: AP, CourtName: NEW YORK COURT OF APPEALS, Plaintiff: PEOPLE, State: NEW YORK, UniqueCaseRef: NE>AP>079_0281, Penal Law, Crime, Mitigation, Convictions, Committing, Misdemeanor, York, Statute, Legislature, Felony, Appellate, Possession, Manner, Authorization, Provisions, Arrest, Mandatory Sentence, Impose, Plea, Unduly Harsh, Criminal Procedure Law, Offense, Probation, Appellate Division, Evident, Prison, Judge, Jurisdiction , ContentID: 120249030

Case Documents
1 1992-03-31 OPINION
[ see first page and extracted highlights below  ] ItemID: 120940
6 pages
HTML
Total Documents: 1 document , 6 pages
Price: $ 19.95


IVESLCD01 KGI0001
 
 

 Forgot your password?


1 . OPINION

EXTRACTED KEY WORDS
COURT
CRIME
MITIGATION
DEFENDANT
CONVICTIONS
COMMITTING
MISDEMEANOR
YORK
STATUTE
LEGISLATURE
FELONY
APPELLATE
POSSESSION
MANNER
AUTHORIZATION
PROVISIONS
ARREST
MANDATORY SENTENCE
IMPOSE
PLEA
UNDULY HARSH
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE LAW
OFFENSE
PROBATION
APPELLATE DIVISION
EVIDENT
PRISON
JUDGE
JURISDICTION


  THE PEOPLE &C., RESPONDENT, v. PATRICK WILLIAMS, A/K/A PATRICK BLAKE,
  APPELLANT.

    79 N.Y.2d 281, 590 N.E.2d 1199, 582 N.Y.S.2d 71 (1992).
    March 31, 1992

   1 No. 24
   Decided March 31, 1992
     _________________________________________________________________

   This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication
   in the New York Reports.

   Steven R. Bernhard, for Appellant.
   Peter D. Coddington, for Respondent.

   KAYE, J.:

   This appeal centers on the technical legality of the sentence imposed
   on defendant--concurrent terms of probation for gun possession--and
   particularly on mitigation provisions of the Penal Law (see,
   70.02(2)(c)(i), 70.02(5)(b)). While agreeing with the Appellate
   Division that mitigation was improper here, we reach that conclusion
   on different grounds.

   Defendant, who was serving a three-year sentence of probation imposed
   by a New Jersey court for marijuana possession, was arrested in New
   York City and charged with third degree unlawful possession of a
   weapon (Penal Law § 265.02) and resisting arrest (Penal Law § 205.30).
   At the time of the arrest, defendant was in possession of a
   fully-loaded automatic pistol that had been defaced--the serial number
   removed--and showed evidence of recent discharge. While on bail,
   defendant was arrested a second time and again charged with unlawful
   possession of a fully loaded .38 caliber revolver. This gun had been
   reported stolen and also showed evidence of recent discharge.
   Defendant's companion, a predicate felon, was charged with possession
   of a loaded .38 special Colt revolver.

   A plea bargain was arranged covering both indictments and as a result
   defendant withdrew his suppression motions. Although the presumptive
   minimum sentence for possession of a loaded firearm is one year in
   prison, the court in accepting defendant's plea suggested disposing of
   both indictments with a "split" sentence of six months in prison and
   four and one-half years probation, because a one-year prison term
   might be "unduly harsh."

SNIPPETS:
  • While agreeing with the Appellate Division that mitigation was improper here, we reach that
  • Defendant, who was serving a three-year sentence of probation imposed by a New Jersey court
  • A plea bargain was arranged covering both indictments and as a result defendant withdrew his
  • Although the presumptive minimum sentence for possession of a loaded firearm is one year in
  • In an apparent response to the People's contention, the court indicated it would mitigate the
  • After a four-month adjournment of the sentencing, the court again stated its intention to
  • Two provisions allow the court discretion to reduce the mandatory sentence.
  • Mitigation under this section is permitted only if the defendant has not been convicted of a
  • The Appellate Division concluded that the trial judge applied section 70.02--"possible
  • The court repeatedly referred to the manner in which the crime was committed; by contrast, no
  • "Enacted at an extraordinary session of the Legislature as a 'key' part of a program intended
  • The dearth of appellate precedent under Penal Law § 70.02suggests that, during the past
  • Little attention was paid to making clear the particular basis for mitigation; only Penal Law
  • The mitigating circumstances, under Penal Law § 70.02, must relate to defendant's conduct in
  • The "unduly harsh" exception of Penal Law § 70.02authorizes the court to "impose any other
  • The People argue that the words "in this chapter" must be read more broadly, to include
  • That legislative intent, additionally, is evident from a repealed Criminal Procedure Law
  •    |