From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Woodard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 4, 1994
201 A.D.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

February 4, 1994

Appeal from the Steuben County Court, Purple, Jr., J.

Present — Green, J.P., Pine, Lawton, Doerr and Boehm, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Steuben County Court for further proceedings in accordance with the following Memorandum: Upon the misapprehension that it was required to do so by Penal Law § 70.25 (1), County Court imposed sentences upon defendant that were consecutive to the unexpired term of a prior DWI conviction. Actually, the court had the discretion to impose concurrent sentences but it "erroneously perceived that it had no discretion to exercise" (People v. Cronin, 60 N.Y.2d 430, 433; see, People v Horn, 161 A.D.2d 492; People v. Taylor, 27 A.D.2d 692). The failure of the court to apprehend the extent of its discretion was a departure from the "`essential nature' of the right to be sentenced as provided by law" (People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152, 156).

Therefore, defendant's sentences are vacated and the matter is remitted to Steuben County Court for resentencing.

We reject the contention that defendant was deprived of effective assistance of counsel (see, People v. Bethany, 182 A.D.2d 1084, lv denied 80 N.Y.2d 828).


Summaries of

People v. Woodard

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 4, 1994
201 A.D.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Woodard

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. CHRISTOPHER WOODARD…

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

Date published: Feb 4, 1994

Citations

201 A.D.2d 896 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
607 N.Y.S.2d 754

Citing Cases

People v. Slattery

That contention survives defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal ( see People v Hager, 213 AD2d…

People v. Schafer

. . ." Actually, the minimum sentence that the court could have imposed was concurrent determinate terms of…