People v. Iovinella

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Iovinella

295 A.D.2d 753, 744 N.Y.S.2d 529, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6512

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

DecidedJune 20, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 753 (People v. Iovinella) 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. Iovinella, 295 A.D.2d 753, 744 N.Y.S.2d 529, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6512 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Tomlinson, J.), rendered June 21, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the first degree.

Defendant was charged in a 16-count indictment with numerous crimes arising from the beating of his girlfriend on August 24, 1998. He pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and was sentenced to 6 to 12 years in prison.

On appeal, defendant contends that County Court erroneously permitted the victim to read the written statements of her mother and father at sentencing and allowed such statements to be made part of the record. We disagree. While CPL 380.50 (2) (b) provides that the victim shall be permitted to make a statement pertinent to sentencing in instances where the defendant is to be sentenced for a crime which is a felony, the statute does not preclude the court from allowing statements by other individuals, particularly family members (see, People v Arroyo, 284 AD2d 735, 736, lv denied 96 NY2d 916; People v Rivers, 262 AD2d 108, 108-109, lv denied 94 NY2d 828). We find no compelling reason to reconsider our decision in People v Arroyo (supra). Therefore, we decline to disturb the judgment of conviction.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

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

Mugglin, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Tomlinson, J.), rendered June 21, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the first degree.

Defendant was charged in a 16-count indictment with numerous crimes arising from the beating of his girlfriend on August 24, 1998. He pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and was sentenced to 6 to 12 years in prison.

On appeal, defendant contends that County Court erroneously permitted the victim to read the written statements of her mother and father at sentencing and allowed such statements to be made part of the record. We disagree. While CPL 380.50 (2) (b) provides that the victim shall be permitted to make a statement pertinent to sentencing in instances where the defendant is to be sentenced for a crime which is a felony, the statute does not preclude the court from allowing statements by other individuals, particularly family members (see, People v Arroyo, 284 AD2d 735, 736, lv denied 96 NY2d 916; People v Rivers, 262 AD2d 108, 108-109, lv denied 94 NY2d 828). We find no compelling reason to reconsider our decision in People v Arroyo (supra). Therefore, we decline to disturb the judgment of conviction.

Crew III, J.P., Peters, Spain and Rose, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 753, 744 N.Y.S.2d 529, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6512, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-iovinella-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack