People v. Coleman
| Decision Date | 15 March 1972 |
| Citation | 330 N.Y.S.2d 797,30 N.Y.2d 582 |
| Parties | , 281 N.E.2d 845 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Luther COLEMAN, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
Lewis B. Oliver, Jr., and Robert Kasanof, New York City, for appellant.
Frank S. Hogan, Dist. Atty. (Andrew E. Abraham and Michael R. Juviler, New York City, of counsel), for respondent.
Although the scope of appeal in a criminal case after a guilty plea is narrowly limited, one of the questions reviewable by an Appellate Division is the severity of sentence. Where the defendant is still actually serving under a sentence claimed to be excessive, he may raise that question on appeal. Within People v. Lynn, 28 N.Y.2d 196, 321 N.Y.S.2d 74, 269 N.E.2d 794 (1971) this would be regarded as a 'viable claim' in an application pursuant to People v. Montgomery, 24 N.Y.2d 130, 299 N.Y.S.2d 156, 247 N.E.2d 130 to reimpose judgment to revive the right to appeal.
Appellant here is presently serving under the maximum sentence imposed. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division could consider the propriety of this sentence. The hearing Judge denied Montgomery relief and the Appellate Division affirmed, 37 A.D.2d 679, 322 N.Y.S.2d 977. This is not a determination on the merits of the claim of excessive sentence nor is it a determination that the Appellate Division would not reduce the sentence--a question which the hearing Judge could not, and the Appellate Division reviewing here did not, consider. It is a determination that no appealable issue was shown by appellant.
The merits of the claimed excessive sentence would, however, be the subject of proper review in which the Appellate Division could either affirm or modify within its own discretion.
The order should be reversed and resentence imposed pursuant to People v. Montgomery, 24 N.Y.2d 130, 299 N.Y.S.2d 156, 247 N.E.2d 130, Supra.
BURKE, J., dissents and votes to affirm.
Order reversed and case remitted to Supreme Court, New York County, for further proceedings in accordance with the memorandum herein.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Thompson
...the plea of guilty (cf. People v. Thomas, 53 N.Y.2d 338, 441 N.Y.S.2d 650, 424 N.E.2d 537). As we noted in People v. Coleman, 30 N.Y.2d 582, 583, 330 N.Y.S.2d 845, 281 N.E.2d 845: "Although the scope of appeal in a criminal case after a guilty plea is narrowly limited, one of the questions ......
-
People v. Rodriguez
...1012.) Since appellant received the maximum permissible sentence, he obviously has raised a 'viable claim'. (People v. Coleman, 30 N.Y.2d 582, 330 N.Y.S.2d 797, 281 N.E.2d 845.) While recognizing that the merits of a claim of excessive sentence is the subject of proper review on an appeal f......
-
People v. Corso
...v. Montgomery (supra), where the defendant was sentenced to less than the maximum permissible sentence (cf. People v. Coleman, 30 N.Y.2d 582, 330 N.Y.S.2d 797, 281 N.E.2d 845). Here appellant, as a second felony offender, was subject to a maximum sentence of 30 to 60 years for his convictio......
-
People v. Hall
...raise this claim on appeal from the judgment of conviction we would find that his sentence was not excessive (People v. Coleman, 30 N.Y.2d 582, 330 N.Y.S.2d 797, 281 N.E.2d 845).' Again in this case, the Appellate Division, apparently conceding that the defendant had a right to a direct app......