Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. David R. GIBBONS, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant was convicted upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25) and grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35). County Court sentenced defendant to indeterminate terms of 1 1/212 to 4 1/212 years' imprisonment on each count, to run concurrently. Immediately thereafter, the court changed the sentence imposed for the attempted burglary count to 2 to 4 years, stating that, because the minimum must be one half of the maximum, the minimum sentence permissible for the offense was 2 to 4 years. When defendant committed the underlying crime in August 1998, it was required that an indeterminate sentence be imposed for a class D violent felony with a maximum range of 3 to 7 years (see, Penal Law § 70.00[2][d] ) and a minimum range of one half of the maximum (see, Penal Law § 70.02[4]; People v. Correa, 248 A.D.2d 630, 631, 670 N.Y.S.2d 513, affd. 93 N.Y.2d 821, 687 N.Y.S.2d 615, 710 N.E.2d 261); therefore, the minimum permissible sentence was 1 1/212 to 3 years. Although we conclude that the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe, the record reflects that the court intended to impose the minimum sentence; therefore, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15[6][a] ) by reducing the sentence imposed for attempted burglary in the second degree to 1 1/212 to 3 years' imprisonment.
The court erred in continuing the order of protection until November 16, 2007. An order of protection shall not exceed the greater of five years from the date of the conviction or three years from the date of the expiration of the maximum term of imprisonment imposed (see, CPL 530.13 [4] ). Therefore, the order of protection must be amended to provide for an expiration date of May 18, 2006 (see, People v. Nunez, 267 A.D.2d 1050, 700 N.Y.S.2d 909).
Judgment unanimously modified as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and as modified affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: March 29, 2000
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)