People v. Laurange

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Laurange

159 A.D.2d 895, 554 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 29, 1990·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Mahoney, P. J.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that County Court erred at sentencing by failing to ask defendant if he wished to make a statement prior to the pronouncement of sentence (see, CPL 380.50). We have held that where, as here, no objection was made to the sentencing court’s oversight, the error has not been preserved for review (see, People v Vega-Freire, 148 AD2d 851), and we find no basis for the exercise of our discretion to reverse in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

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

Mahoney, P. J.

Defendant’s sole contention on appeal is that County Court erred at sentencing by failing to ask defendant if he wished to make a statement prior to the pronouncement of sentence (see, CPL 380.50). We have held that where, as here, no objection was made to the sentencing court’s oversight, the error has not been preserved for review (see, People v Vega-Freire, 148 AD2d 851), and we find no basis for the exercise of our discretion to reverse in the interest of justice (see, CPL 470.15).

Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P. J., Casey, Weiss, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur.

People v. Laurange, 159 A.D.2d 895, 554 N.Y.S.2d 1021, 1990 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3581 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1990).

Pincite

159 A.D.2d 895 (People v. Laurange) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related