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

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided February 5, 1996·Published·Cited by 3 cases

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.

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

224 A.D.2d 441 (People v. Daprano) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related