AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Attorney(S)
Judges
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
Attorney(S)
Judges

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT, v. AQUILINO SOTO, APPELLANT. (Ind. No. 326/97)

DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the indeterminate sentence of 11 to 22 years imprisonment imposed upon the defendant's conviction for assault in the first degree and imposing an indeterminate sentence of 3 to 6 years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution (see, People v. Contes, 60 N.Y.2d 620), we find that the evidence was legally sufficient to establish the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (see, People v. Alexander, 176 A.D.2d 947; People v. Harvey, 175 A.D.2d 138). Moreover, upon the exercise of our factual review power, we are satisfied that the verdict of guilt was not against the weight of the evidence.

The hearing court providently exercised its discretion in reopening the suppression hearing before rendering its determination (see, People v. Torres, 257 A.D.2d 672; People v. Harrington, 193 A.D.2d 756).

The sentence imposed upon the defendant's conviction for assault in the first degree was illegal (see, Penal Law §§ 70.05[c]; 120.10). The record indicates that the sentencing court intended to give the defendant "the same sentence" of 3 to 6 years that it had imposed on a codefendant, Richard Lara, for his conviction of assault in the first degree. However, the clerk mistakenly recorded a sentence of 11 to 22 years imprisonment, which was the sentence imposed on the defendant's conviction for manslaughter. Accordingly, we modify the sentence to reflect the intention of the court.

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

PEOPLE v. SOTO
(Feb 20, 2001)