People v. Joseph

63 A.D.3d 1727, 880 N.Y.S.2d 601
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 19, 2009·No. Appeal No. 2·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Upon the Court’s own motion, the memorandum and order entered June 5, 2009 (63 AD3d 1659 [2009]) is amended by deleting “as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice and” from the ordering paragraph and by deleting the penultimate sentence of the memorandum and substituting the following sentence: “We note that, although defendant failed to preserve his contention for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]), preservation is not required inasmuch as the * “essential nature” of the right to be sentenced as provided by law’ is implicated (People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 156 [1982]).” Present: Martoche, J.P., Smith, Fahey, Garni and Green, JJ.

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

People v. Joseph, 63 A.D.3d 1727, 880 N.Y.S.2d 601 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2009).

63 A.D.3d 1727 (People v. Joseph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

JOSEPH, III, RAYMOND E., PEOPLE v
90 A.D.3d 1646 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2011)