Legal Opinion

People v. Holland

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

Decided May 26, 1952PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

In our opinion this was error. Appellant’s plea of guilty and consequent conviction in the Federal court did not necessarily establish that the act involved was in any way connected with prostitution or other commercialized vice proscribed by section 2460 of the Penal Law of this State. (Cf. Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470; Cleveland v. United States, 329 U. S. 14; People v. Draper, 169 App. Div. 479.) Appellant’s sentence as a second offender was, consequently, improper. (People v. Olah, 300 N. Y. 96; People v. Gailhard, 278 App. Div. 712.) Adel, J., concurs with Nolan, P. J.

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Caminetti v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1917
  2. Cleveland v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  3. People v. OlahNew York Court of Appeals · 1949
  4. People v. DraperAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1915
  5. People v. GailhardAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1951

3Cited by1 opinion

  1. People ex rel. Holland v. O'HaraAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1963