People v. Daprano

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Daprano

224 A.D.2d 441, 638 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 894

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

DecidedFebruary 5, 1996

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 224 A.D.2d 441 (People v. Daprano) 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 v. Daprano, 224 A.D.2d 441, 638 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from an amended sentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), imposed November 17, 1994, which modified a sentence imposed on September 30, 1992, upon his conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree, by directing restitution in the amount of $11,424.76.

Ordered that the amended sentence is-affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the court was not [442]*442divested of jurisdiction in this matter as a result of the delay in imposing restitution (see, People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359). The defendant entered his plea of guilty with the understanding that he would be ordered to pay restitution in addition to serving a prison sentence. Moreover, the People proffered a reasonable explanation for the delay (see, People v Drake, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his brief, from an amended sentence of the County Court, Dutchess County (Marlow, J.), imposed November 17, 1994, which modified a sentence imposed on September 30, 1992, upon his conviction of grand larceny in the fourth degree, by directing restitution in the amount of $11,424.76.

Ordered that the amended sentence is-affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the court was not [442]*442divested of jurisdiction in this matter as a result of the delay in imposing restitution (see, People v Drake, 61 NY2d 359). The defendant entered his plea of guilty with the understanding that he would be ordered to pay restitution in addition to serving a prison sentence. Moreover, the People proffered a reasonable explanation for the delay (see, People v Drake, supra).

The defendant’s remaining contentions are either unpreserved for appellate review (see, CPL 470.05 [2]) or without merit. Mangano, P. J., Thompson, Friedmann and Florio, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

224 A.D.2d 441, 638 N.Y.S.2d 318, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-daprano-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack