People v. McCarroll

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. McCarroll

95 A.D.2d 815, 463 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18744

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

DecidedJune 13, 1983

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 95 A.D.2d 815 (People v. McCarroll) 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. McCarroll, 95 A.D.2d 815, 463 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18744 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1983).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonomo, J.), rendered April 18, 1980, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to Criminal Term for resentencing. A review of the sentence minutes reveals that defendant was not accorded an opportunity to speak in his own behalf prior to the imposition of sentence. This was violative of CPL 380.50 (see People v Hallingquest, 79 AD2d 1010; cf. People v McClain, 35 NY2d 483). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Bonomo, J.), rendered April 18, 1980, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Judgment modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed. As so modified, judgment affirmed and case remitted to Criminal Term for resentencing. A review of the sentence minutes reveals that defendant was not accorded an opportunity to speak in his own behalf prior to the imposition of sentence. This was violative of CPL 380.50 (see People v Hallingquest, 79 AD2d 1010; cf. People v McClain, 35 NY2d 483). Gibbons, J. P., Thompson, Weinstein and Rubin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

95 A.D.2d 815, 463 N.Y.S.2d 538, 1983 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 18744, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mccarroll-nyappdiv-1983.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack