Opinion · Nylaw New York

PEOPLE v. COLON, 20 A.D.2d 854 [1st Dept 1964]

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF N.Y., Respondent, v. DOMINGO COLON,Appellant., 20 A.D.2d 854 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. 1964)

Type
Opinion
Court
Nylaw New York
Jurisdiction
Nylaw
Date
1964-04-02
Topic
general

PEOPLE v. COLON, 20 A.D.2d 854 [1st Dept 1964] THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DOMINGO COLON,Appellant.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department. April 2, 1964 Judgment of the Court of General Sessions, New York County, rendered on December 11, 1961, convicting defendant after trial before a jury of two counts of feloniously selling a narcotic drug and sentencing him to serve a minimum of 7 1/2 years and a maximum of 10 years in State prison on each of said counts, the sentences to run consecutively, unanimously modified, on the facts, the law and in the exercise of discretion to the extent that the sentences will run concurrently instead of consecutively, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed. Some of the questions addressed to witnesses by the Trial Judge and some of the observations he made, while motivated by an evident desire to enlighten the jury and not to prejudice the defendant, were unfortunate and unnecessary; but they could not substantially have affected the outcome of the trial.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed PEOPLE v. COLON, 20 A.D.2d 854 [1st Dept 1964]. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

PEOPLE v. COLON,20 A.D.2d 854[1st Dept 1964]
THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. DOMINGO COLON,
Appellant.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, First Department.
April 2, 1964
Judgment of the Court of General Sessions, New York County, rendered on December 11, 1961, convicting defendant after trial before a jury of two counts of feloniously selling a narcotic drug and sentencing him to serve a minimum of 7 1/2 years and a maximum of 10 years in State prison on each of said counts, the sentences to run consecutively, unanimously modified, on the facts, the law and in the exercise of discretion to the extent that the sentences will run concurrently instead of consecutively, and the judgment is otherwise affirmed. Some of the questions addressed to witnesses by the Trial Judge and some of the observations he made, while motivated by an evident desire to enlighten the jury and not to prejudice the defendant, were unfortunate and unnecessary; but they could not substantially have affected the outcome of the trial. The sentence imposed, however, was excessive, inasmuch as the evidence upon the trial and a reading of the probation report indicate that defendant was a small-scale seller of narcotics and that he had no previous record of arrest or conviction upon a narcotics charge.

Concur — Botein, P.J., Breitel, McNally, Stevens and Steuer, JJ.