You are here: / / THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT SEPARATELY PRONOUNCE A SENTENCE FOR EACH CONVICTION;...
,

THE SENTENCING JUDGE DID NOT SEPARATELY PRONOUNCE A SENTENCE FOR EACH CONVICTION; MATTER REMITTED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, remitting the matter for resentencing, noted the sentencing judge did not pronounce sentence separately for the two counts:

… [W]e are …  obliged to remit for resentencing. The sentencing transcript reflects that County Court imposed a single sentence upon defendant and “failed to pronounce sentence separately on each of the two counts [of] which [she was convicted], as required by CPL 380.20” … . As a result, the matter must be remitted so that County Court can pronounce sentence on each count … . People v Robbins, 2022 NY Slip Op 03549, Third Dept 6-2-22

Practice Point: A sentencing judge must pronounce a sentence separately for each conviction.

 

You might also like
SORA RISK LEVEL ASSESSMENT REVERSED, DEFENDANT WAS NOT GIVEN A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO COURT’S ASSESSMENT FOR VIOLENCE.
AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEEDING WAS BROUGHT BY THE UNIVERSITY AGAINST PETITIONER-STUDENT BASED UPON ANOTHER STUDENT’S (THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL’S) ALLEGATIONS SHE WAS SEXUALLY ASSAULTED; THE UNIVERSITY’S TITLE IX GRIEVANCE POLICY PROVIDES THAT WHERE, AS HERE, THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL IS ABSENT FROM THE HEARING AND IS NOT SUBJECT TO CROSS-EXAMINATION, ANY DETERMINATION BY THE UNIVERSITY CANNOT BE BASED UPON STATEMENTS ATTRIBUTED TO THE REPORTING INDIVIDUAL; THE DETERMINATION WAS ANNULLED ON THAT GROUND (THIRD DEPT).
STATUTORY PRESUMPTION THAT UNWITNESSED ACCIDENT AROSE FROM EMPLOYMENT DID NOT CREATE A PRESUMPTION THE ACCIDENT HAD HAPPENED, DENIAL OF CLAIM AFFIRMED.
PEOPLE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED NOTICE OF BURGLARY VICTIM’S IDENTIFICATION OF DEFENDANT ON THE POLICE DEPARTMENT’S FACEBOOK PAGE AFTER THE VICTIM HAD BEEN GIVEN THE DEFENDANT’S NAME BY THE POLICE, ERROR HARMLESS HOWEVER (THIRD DEPT).
AUTO DAMAGE APPRAISER NOT AN EMPLOYEE, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).
COURT ORDER WAS AMBIGUOUS AND ERRONEOUS AND COULD NOT THEREFORE BE THE BASIS OF A CONTEMPT FINDING AND SANCTIONS (THIRD DEPT). ​
CRITERIA FOR RECLASSIFICATION OF THE SORA RISK-LEVEL EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
FAMILY COURT DID NOT FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE MANDATED BY THE UNIFORM CHILD CUSTODY JURISDICTION AND ENFORCEMENT ACT BEFORE RULING OHIO HAD JURISDICTION IN THE CUSTODY MATTER; MOTHER’S NEW YORK FAMILY OFFENSE PETITION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BECAUSE NEW YORK HAS SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER FAMILY OFFENSES OCCURRING IN OHIO (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

A RECENT US SUPREME COURT RULING DOES NOT AFFECT THE NYS COURT OF APPEALS RULING... THE JURY WAS NOT INSTRUCTED TO STOP DELIBERATIONS IF IT FOUND THE JUSTIFICATION...