People v. McGinn

96 A.D.3d 977, 946 N.Y.S.2d 489
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 20, 2012
StatusPublished
Cited by13 cases

This text of 96 A.D.3d 977 (People v. McGinn) 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. McGinn, 96 A.D.3d 977, 946 N.Y.S.2d 489 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (R. Doyle, J.), rendered January 24, 2011, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court, upon a finding that he had violated conditions thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of operating a vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, as a felony, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motor vehicle in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant’s contention that the Supreme Court improperly sentenced him without obtaining an updated presentence report is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gledhill, 91 AD3d 886 [2012]; People v Mannina, 89 AD3d 1038 [2011]; People v Thompson, 65 AD3d 1390 [2009]) and, in any event, is without merit (see People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278, 282-283 [1994]; People v Cannon, 208 AD2d 942, 943 [1994] ; People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98 [1984]).

[978]*978The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his sentence should be vacated because the Supreme Court did not afford either the prosecutor or defense counsel the opportunity to make a statement with respect to the sentence and did not ask the defendant if he wished to make a statement in his own behalf, in violation of CPL 380.50 (1) (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v McCant, 79 AD3d 908 [2010]; People v Chin, 69 AD3d 752, 753 [2010]; People v Chi Fong Chen, 56 AD3d 488, 489 [2008]), and the contention is, in any event, without merit (see People v McClain, 35 NY2d 483, 491 [1974], cert denied 423 US 852 [1975]; People v Regan, 88 AD2d 664 [1982]). Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Saunders
219 A.D.3d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2023)
People v. Garville
2021 NY Slip Op 02821 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Martinez-Galdamez
2021 NY Slip Op 02178 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2021)
People v. Houston P. B.
2018 NY Slip Op 161 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Crosby
133 A.D.3d 681 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Heine
122 A.D.3d 644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. McGhee
111 A.D.3d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
BROTZ, DANIEL W., PEOPLE v
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013
People v. Brotz
108 A.D.3d 1236 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Camino
105 A.D.3d 1055 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
96 A.D.3d 977, 946 N.Y.S.2d 489, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-mcginn-nyappdiv-2012.