People v. Sherman
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Citation | People v. Sherman, 365 N.Y.S.2d 164, 35 N.Y.2d 931, 324 N.E.2d 546 (N.Y. 1974) |
| Decision Date | 20 December 1974 |
| Parties | , 324 N.E.2d 546 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jack SHERMAN, Appellant. |
Order reversed and the case remitted to Supreme Court, Queens County, for a hearing, preferably before another Justice, on the dissenting opinion by Mr. Justice J. Irwin Shapiro at the Appellate Division,43 A.D.2d 575, 349 N.Y.S.2d 124. Moreover, it is observed that under CPL 420.10(4) an application for resentence may be made at any time.
All concur.
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your Free Trial
7 cases
-
People v. Brignoni
... ... CPL 40.20(2)(b). See, People v. Bryant, 92 N.Y.2d 216, 227, 677 N.Y.S.2d 286, 699 N.E.2d 910 (1998); Matter of Kessler v. Sherman, 41 N.Y.2d 851, 393 N.Y.S.2d 703, 362 N.E.2d 254; see also, United States v. Gore, 154 F.3d 34, 44 (2d Cir.1998) ... In the current case, CPL 40.20 would not bar prosecution even if suspension of a license pursuant to VTL 226(3) and VTL 510(4)(a) constituted a prosecution ... ...
-
People v. Goddard
... ... In the recent case of People v. Maas, 15 the court questioned the constitutional validity of 420.10(4)(d) as had Mr. Justice Shapiro in People v. Sherman. 16 Noting that 420.10(3) allows for the imprisonment of a defaulting defendant to one-third of the maximum authorized sentence until the fine is paid in misdemeanor cases and 420.10(4)(d) allows for the imposition of the original sentence, the Maas court remarked: ... " ... if a court be limited ... ...
-
People v. Montero
...hearing to ascertain the validity of the claim (Bearden v. Georgia, supra, p. 672, 103 S.Ct. p. 2073; People v. Sherman, 35 N.Y.2d 931, 365 N.Y.S.2d 164, 324 N.E.2d 546, revg. 43 A.D.2d 575, 345 N.Y.S.2d 124 on dissenting opn of Shapiro, J.; People v. McArdle, 70 A.D.2d 600, 416 N.Y.S.2d 75......
-
People v. Wojcieszek
...good faith efforts to pay restitution ( see, Bearden v. Georgia, 461 U.S. 660, 103 S.Ct. 2064, 76 L.Ed.2d 221; People v. Sherman, 35 N.Y.2d 931, 365 N.Y.S.2d 164, 324 N.E.2d 546; People v. McArdle, 70 A.D.2d 600, 416 N.Y.S.2d 758, after remand 78 A.D.2d 544, 432 N.Y.S.2d 40, affd. 55 N.Y.2d......
Get Started for Free
