People v. Harris

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Harris

42 A.D.2d 945, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3385

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

DecidedOctober 18, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 42 A.D.2d 945 (People v. Harris) 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. Harris, 42 A.D.2d 945, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3385 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on June 23, 1972, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed. The record indicates that at the time of sentencing, the court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of CPL 380.50 in not affording defendant the right to make a statement personally in his own behalf and in not inquiring of defendant whether he wished to make such a statement. Failure to ask the required allocution constitutes error necessitating a reversal of the sentence and ■ a remand for resentencing only. (See People v. Lotz, 42 A D 2d 900 and eases therein cited.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Nunez, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered on June 23, 1972, insofar as it imposes sentence, unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, Bronx County, for resentencing, and otherwise affirmed. The record indicates that at the time of sentencing, the court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of CPL 380.50 in not affording defendant the right to make a statement personally in his own behalf and in not inquiring of defendant whether he wished to make such a statement. Failure to ask the required allocution constitutes error necessitating a reversal of the sentence and ■ a remand for resentencing only. (See People v. Lotz, 42 A D 2d 900 and eases therein cited.) Concur — Stevens, P. J., McGivern, Nunez, Murphy and Capozzoli, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

42 A.D.2d 945, 1973 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3385, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-harris-nyappdiv-1973.