People v. Thigpen
| Decision Date | 09 January 1978 |
| Citation | 60 A.D.2d 860,400 N.Y.S.2d 584 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Lulla Bell THIGPEN, a/k/a Lulla Bell Alford, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John F. Middlemiss, Jr., Riverhead (Gerald J. Callahan, Commack, and Leon J. Kesner, Bay Shore, of counsel), for appellant.
Henry F. O'Brien, Dist. Atty., Riverhead (Daniel J. Murphy, Riverhead, of counsel), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and TITONE, SUOZZI and HAWKINS, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by defendant, as limited by her brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, imposed October 6, 1976, upon her conviction of grand larceny in the third degree, upon her plea of guilty, the sentence being a five-year term of probation, with the condition that defendant execute a confession of judgment in the sum of $27,901.62
Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remanded to Criminal Term for resentencing in accordance herewith.
Authority exists under section 65.10 (subd. 2, par. (f)) of the Penal Law to require execution of a confession of judgment by a convicted defendant in a specific sum as a further condition, since "restitution or reparation" may be made a condition of the sentence. However, the principal sum recited in the confession of judgment must be based upon findings of the sum actually due, with appropriate allowances made for offsets or other factors which could properly reduce the total amount. Remand is further required as the sentence does not prescribe "the manner of performance".
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Farber v. Stockton
...78 Misc.2d 217, 356 N.Y.S.2d 483; People v. Topping, 79 Misc.2d 260, 359 N.Y.S.2d 985). Defendant's reliance on People v. Thigpen, 60 A.D.2d 860, 400 N.Y.S.2d 584 is misplaced. A careful reading of that case indicates that the court required the confession of judgment (emphasis supplied) en......
- People v. Wilson
-
People v. Kom
...due with appropriate allowances made for offsets or other factors which could properly reduce the total amount (People v. Thigpen, 60 A.D.2d 860, 400 N.Y.S.2d 584). In the instant case, taking into account the services actually received by the complainant, the amount of restitution should b......