AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Attorney(S)

THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. CHARLES SACCO, appellant.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed thereon; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance with CPL 380.20, and for further proceedings pursuant to CPL 460.50(5).

The defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel involves matters outside the record and is therefore not properly presented on direct appeal (see People v. Bennett, 284 A.D.2d 338).

The Supreme Court failed to pronounce a clear sentence on each of the counts of which the defendant was convicted. Therefore, the matter must be remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance with CPL 380.20 (see People v. Sturgis, 69 N.Y.2d 816; People v. McFadden, 261 A.D.2d 417; People v. Cuccuru, 236 A.D.2d 419).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review, and in any event, are without merit.

RITTER, J.P., FEUERSTEIN, GOLDSTEIN and COZIER, JJ., concur.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. SACCO
(May 13, 2002)