From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Heath

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1976
51 A.D.2d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Opinion

February 9, 1976


Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County, rendered June 20, 1973, convicting him of attempted kidnapping in the second degree, upon his guilty plea, and imposing the sentence of an indeterminate term not to exceed 10 years, to run concurrently with previously imposed concurrent Federal terms of 10 years. The defendant was subsequently resentenced in the Federal court to serve concurrent terms of eight and one-half and four years. Judgment modified as to the sentence, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to an indeterminate term of up to eight and one-half years, to run concurrently with the Federally imposed sentence. As so modified, judgment affirmed. Under the Penal Law, as it read at the time in question, a sentence to a State penal institution could not run concurrently with a previously imposed sentence to a Federal penitentiary (see Penal Law, former § 70.25; § 70.30, subd 1; People v Schatz, 45 A.D.2d 853; People v Thomas, 49 A.D.2d 638). Thus, defendant's sentence must be modified. Such concurrent sentences are now permissible (L 1975, ch 782, § 2). Consequently, in the interest of justice, defendant's sentence has been reduced to a term consistent with the bargain which he struck when changing his plea. Hopkins, Acting P.J., Cohalan, Rabin, Shapiro and Titone, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Heath

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Feb 9, 1976
51 A.D.2d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)
Case details for

People v. Heath

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. GEORGE HEATH, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Feb 9, 1976

Citations

51 A.D.2d 750 (N.Y. App. Div. 1976)

Citing Cases

Matter of Banach v. Ward

Both of petitioner's principal arguments claim an illegal interruption of his sentence under section 430.10…