People ex rel. McCormack v. McMann

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People ex rel. McCormack v. McMann

34 A.D.2d 1035, 311 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4551

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

DecidedJune 11, 1970

StatusPublished

This text of 34 A.D.2d 1035 (People ex rel. McCormack v. McMann) 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

People ex rel. McCormack v. McMann, 34 A.D.2d 1035, 311 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4551 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1970).

Pincite

Opinion

Sweeney, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered February 2, 1967 in Clinton County, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus, after a hearing. The defendant was convicted of first degree larceny. He appeared with counsel for sentencing and when asked if he had any legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced, answered in the negative. His counsel then made a plea for mercy and leniency and on its completion asked the court if defendant could make a statement. The court said, “ No ”, After the court passed sentence, the defendant said, “ your Honor, may I make a request?” The court again said, “ No ”; the defendant finally said, “ I would like to ask you * * * there’s a psychiatrist coming into the jail for the past four weeks ”. The court replied, “ all right ”. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the court complied with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We believe it did. While the record reveals defendant desired to make a statement, our conclusion is that he wished to inquire about psychiatric treatment and not to object to the pronouncement of sentence. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.

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

Sweeney, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered February 2, 1967 in Clinton County, which dismissed a writ of habeas corpus, after a hearing. The defendant was convicted of first degree larceny. He appeared with counsel for sentencing and when asked if he had any legal cause why sentence should not be pronounced, answered in the negative. His counsel then made a plea for mercy and leniency and on its completion asked the court if defendant could make a statement. The court said, “ No ”, After the court passed sentence, the defendant said, “ your Honor, may I make a request?” The court again said, “ No ”; the defendant finally said, “ I would like to ask you * * * there’s a psychiatrist coming into the jail for the past four weeks ”. The court replied, “ all right ”. The sole question presented on this appeal is whether the court complied with section 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. We believe it did. While the record reveals defendant desired to make a statement, our conclusion is that he wished to inquire about psychiatric treatment and not to object to the pronouncement of sentence. Judgment affirmed. Herlihy, P. J., Reynolds, Greenblott, Cooke and Sweeney, JJ., concur in memorandum by Sweeney, J.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 A.D.2d 1035, 311 N.Y.S.2d 332, 1970 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4551, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-ex-rel-mccormack-v-mcmann-nyappdiv-1970.