People v. Pringle

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Pringle

44 A.D.2d 845, 355 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4981

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

DecidedMay 20, 1974

StatusPublished

This text of 44 A.D.2d 845 (People v. Pringle) 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. Pringle, 44 A.D.2d 845, 355 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4981 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 28, 1972. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remitted to the Criminal Term for resentencing. The sentencing court did not ask defendant, as required by CPL 380.50, if he wished to make a statement before the pronouncement of sentence. He was merely asked if he wished to address the court as to any legal cause why he should not be adjudged an addict. This query was not a substitute for informing him of his right of allocution and asking him if he wished to exercise it. Further, defense counsel’s plea for leniency was not a substitute for defendant’s own statement (Green v. United States, 365 U. S. 301). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, rendered September 28, 1972. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remitted to the Criminal Term for resentencing. The sentencing court did not ask defendant, as required by CPL 380.50, if he wished to make a statement before the pronouncement of sentence. He was merely asked if he wished to address the court as to any legal cause why he should not be adjudged an addict. This query was not a substitute for informing him of his right of allocution and asking him if he wished to exercise it. Further, defense counsel’s plea for leniency was not a substitute for defendant’s own statement (Green v. United States, 365 U. S. 301). Hopkins, Acting P. J., Martuscello, Latham, Cohalan and Benjamin, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

44 A.D.2d 845, 355 N.Y.S.2d 798, 1974 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 4981, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pringle-nyappdiv-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack