[Download] "People State New York v. Lawrence Monsanto" by Supreme Court of New York * eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free
eBook details
- Title: People State New York v. Lawrence Monsanto
- Author : Supreme Court of New York
- Release Date : January 19, 1973
- Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
- Pages : * pages
- Size : 65 KB
Description
Defendant, an admitted narcotic addict, interposed his guilty plea in satisfaction of all charges in the indictment. At sentencing, the court affirmatively indicated that it wished to exercise its discretion under section 208 of the former Mental Hygiene Law (now section 81.21 of the present Mental Hygiene Law) by sentencing defendant to prison rather than certifying him to the care and custody of NACC. Indicating dissatisfaction with the result, but being of the opinion that it was bound by the mandatory language of paragraph a of subdivision 4 of section 208, the court then certified defendant to the custody of NACC on the misdemeanor conviction. This led to the anomalous result of having defendant receive a prison sentence and a certification to the care and custody of NACC at the same time. The statute gave the court the discretion to sentence an addicted defendant to prison or to certify him to NACC where the defendant was convicted of a felony. The obvious intent was to allow the court to review all the circumstances and to determine whether the prospect of rehabilitation should yield to the factor of protection of society and the need to impose punishment. However, where the conviction was for a misdemeanor, the statute mandated that the addicted defendant be certified to the care and custody of NACC. Therefore, if the statute is read literally, convictions for a felony and a misdemeanor at the same time required certification to NACC, even though a conviction for a felony alone allowed the court to exercise its discretion in deciding whether to certify the addict to NACC. The result would be that the courts discretion was diminished because there was a conviction for an additional crime. In our opinion, it was not the intention of the Legislature to mandate the occurrence of such an incongruity. If the Legislature intended that the court have discretion in sentencing an addicted felon, then logic dictates that the intention was not to fetter that discretion where the court must also sentence for a misdemeanor conviction. This interpretation is buttressed by the provisions of section 211-a of the former Mental Hygiene Law (section 81.31 of the present statute), under which NACC could discharge an addict previously certified to its care and custody in order [41 A.D.2d 761 Page 762]