People v. Mussenden

2 Citing cases

  1. People v. Doran

    2 A.D.2d 890 (N.Y. App. Div. 1956)   Cited 4 times

    The additional terms were apparently imposed because the County Judge was of the opinion that the jury had found that the crimes charged in the indictment were committed by the appellant while armed; but the record does not disclose that the jury so found. Assuming, however, that upon the facts shown a finding was properly made by either the court or the jury that appellant was armed while in the act of committing the crimes, nevertheless, in view of the facts that he had never been previously convicted of a crime and was under 21 years of age, and in view of the other relevant facts and circumstances, the sentence was excessive. Upon this record it cannot be held that the court abused its discretion by not fixing a reformatory term pursuant to section 2184-a of the Penal Law. No reversible error was committed in the charge (see, e.g., People v. Mussenden, 284 App. Div. 479, affd. 308 N.Y. 558), or otherwise. No separate appeal lies from the sentence, which has been reviewed on the appeal from the judgment of conviction.

  2. People v. Thompson

    14 Misc. 2d 670 (N.Y. Misc. 1958)   Cited 3 times

    The court have repeatedly held that an indictment may contain counts charging various crimes and numerous counts ( People v. Vario, 165 Misc. 842); even as many as 90 counts ( People v. Luciano, 277 N.Y. 348). The indictment here specifically charges that the several counts in the indictment each constitute a part of a common scheme or plan. This procedure authorized by section 279 of the code was upheld in People v. Erickson ( 302 N.Y. 461); People v. Mussenden ( 284 App. Div. 479) and People v. Josie ( 206 Misc. 704). The defendants take the position that the provisions of section 279 of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply solely to the long form of indictment of section 276 of the code and not to the short-form indictment of section 295-e of the code.