People v. Taras
| Decision Date | 17 April 1947 |
| Citation | 73 N.E.2d 564,296 N.Y. 983 |
| Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | PEOPLE, Respondent-Appellant, v. Frank N. TARAS, &c., Appellant-Respondent. |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeals from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, 269 App.Div. 694, 53 N.Y.S.2d 694,269 App.Div. 705, 54 N.Y.S.2d 693.
Frank Nicholas Taras had been found guilty after trial on November 6, 1941, of the crime of burglary, second degree, as a second offense. Sentence upon such verdict was imposed on December 12, 1941. The defendant, challenging the legality of his sentence by writ of habeas corpus, obtained an order of the Supreme Court entered on July 13, 1943, directing his resentence. On August 3, 1943, he was resentenced to imprisonment in state prison for a term of not less than 15 nor more than 20 years, and from such judgment defendant appealed.
The Appellate Division, 269 App.Div. 694, 53 N.Y.S.2d 694, granted in part the People's motion to dismiss the appeal, but the Appellate Division held that defendant could present for review the legality of the resentence imposed upon him by the county court on August 4, 1943. As so limited, the amended judgment was affirmed by the Appellate Division, 269 App.Div. 705, 54 N.Y.S.2d 693.
From so much of the order of the Appellate Division which dismissed his appeal to the Appellate Division, defendant appeals, and he also appeals from the judgment affirming the judgment of the county court entered August 4th upon resentence, and the People appeal from so much of the order as denied their motion to dismiss in the entirety the defendant's appeal to the Appellate Division.
People's appeal dismissed, and on appeal by defendant order affirmed. Joseph Lonardo, of Flushing, for appellant.
Charles P. Sullivan, Dist. Atty., of Long Island City (Henry W. Schober, Asst. Dist. Atty., of Ridgewood, of counsel), for respondent.
Upon appeal by the People, appeal dismissed; upon appeal by the defendant, order affirmed.
All concur.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Coe
...sentence. (See People v. Baumeister, 283 N.Y. 625, 28 N.E.2d 32; People v. Taras, 269 App.Div. 694, 53 N.Y.S.2d 694, affd. 296 N.Y. 983, 73 N.E.2d 564, certiorari denied 332 U.S. 818, 68 S.Ct. 144, 92 L.Ed. 395; People v. Faucetta, 301 N.Y. 758, 95 N.E.2d 819; see also People v. Sullivan, 3......
-
People v. Evans
...650, 651-653; People v. Rozea, 267 App.Div. 569, 47 N.Y.S.2d 569; People v. Taras, 269 App.Div. 694, 53 N.Y.S.2d 694, affd. 296 N.Y. 983, 73 N.E.2d 564; cf. People v. Frankola, 264 App.Div. 741, 34 N.Y.S.2d 435; People v. Kolodny, 10 A.D.2d 950, 201 N.Y.S.2d 420; see also 20 Misc.2d 267, 26......
-
People v. Mattera
...plea or habeas corpus, according to the specific error raised (see People v. Taras, 269 App.Div. 694, 53 N.Y.S.2d 694, affirmed 296 N.Y. 983, 73 N.E.2d 564).' III An issue is also raised concerning the information filed and read at the time of sentence. It was not necessary that the said in......
-
People v. Sullivan
...withdraw plea or habeas corpus, according to the specific error raised (see People v. Taras, 269 App.Div. 694, 53 N.Y.S.2d 694, affirmed 296 N.Y. 983, N.E.2d 564). Although the sentence in a criminal case is customarily said to be the judgment of the case (People v. Cioffi, 1 N.Y.2d 70, 72,......