Peopl v. Jackson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Peopl v. Jackson

58 A.D.2d 741, 396 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12868

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

DecidedJune 3, 1977

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 58 A.D.2d 741 (Peopl v. Jackson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Peopl v. Jackson, 58 A.D.2d 741, 396 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12868 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment insofar as it imposes sentence unanimously reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to Erie County Court for resentencing, and otherwise judgment affirmed. Memorandum: While at the time of the imposition of the sentence, the court did offer defendant’s counsel an opportunity to make a statement, which he did, no similar opportunity was offered to defendant as required by CPL 380.50. Although literal compliance with that statute is not necessary (see People v McClain, 35 NY2d 483), the complete failure here to advise defendant of his right to speak necessitates a finding that the statute was not even substantially complied with (People v Wade, 49 AD2d 770; People v Rizzo, 41 AD2d 691). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court — robbery, second degree.) Present — Moule, J. P., Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Judgment insofar as it imposes sentence unanimously reversed, on the law, and matter remitted to Erie County Court for resentencing, and otherwise judgment affirmed. Memorandum: While at the time of the imposition of the sentence, the court did offer defendant’s counsel an opportunity to make a statement, which he did, no similar opportunity was offered to defendant as required by CPL 380.50. Although literal compliance with that statute is not necessary (see People v McClain, 35 NY2d 483), the complete failure here to advise defendant of his right to speak necessitates a finding that the statute was not even substantially complied with (People v Wade, 49 AD2d 770; People v Rizzo, 41 AD2d 691). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court — robbery, second degree.) Present — Moule, J. P., Simons, Dillon and Witmer, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

58 A.D.2d 741, 396 N.Y.S.2d 119, 1977 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12868, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peopl-v-jackson-nyappdiv-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack