From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Pitts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 8, 1980
75 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Opinion

April 8, 1980

Appeal from the Erie County Court.

Present — Simons, J.P., Hancock, Jr., Schnepp, Doerr and Moule, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant has pleaded guilty to attempted rape, first degree, in full satisfaction of three indictments containing multiple counts. At the time of the plea, counsel stated on the record that the plea was based on representations of the court and the prosecutor that the sentence would be 0 to 5 years and would run concurrently with an undischarged term defendant was serving in the Erie County Penitentiary. The court accepted counsel's statement and asked the defendant if that was his understanding of the plea bargain. At the time of sentencing the court imposed a 0- to 5-year term, but in an ambiguous comment refused counsel's request to specify that the term was concurrent. It did not direct, however, that the sentence was to be consecutive with the existing undischarged term. Accordingly, the sentences are to run concurrently by operation of law (Penal Law, § 70.25, subd 1).


Summaries of

People v. Pitts

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Apr 8, 1980
75 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)
Case details for

People v. Pitts

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JERRY PITTS, Appellant

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

Date published: Apr 8, 1980

Citations

75 A.D.2d 719 (N.Y. App. Div. 1980)

Citing Cases

People v. Garcia

The sentencing court was silent on the issue of whether the indeterminate sentence imposed herein should run…

People v. Barthel

For all practical purposes, defendant's proposed remedy would make his two sentences concurrent by default.…