People v. Rivera

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rivera

76 Misc. 2d 414, 350 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1502

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedNovember 30, 1973

StatusPublished

This text of 76 Misc. 2d 414 (People v. Rivera) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Rivera, 76 Misc. 2d 414, 350 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1502 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1973).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

Where defendant pleads guilty to a violation of article 220 of the Penal Law, a medical examination to determine whether defendant is a narcotic addict is not required prior to .sentencing unless the court has reason to believe from defendant’s behavior while in custody or before the court, that he may be .addicted. (Mental Hygiene Law, § 81.19; People v. Olson, 36 A D 2d 966.)

While the failure of the court to afford a defendant his right of allocution (CPL 380.50) ordinarily requires a reversal of the sentence and a remand for resentence (People ex rel. Emanuel v. McMann, 7 N Y 2d 342; People v. Sullivan, 3 N Y 2d 196) no useful purpose would be served thereby in this case, since defendant has served the sentence imposed (People v. Gifford, 2 A D 2d 642) and the error applies solely to the sentence. (People v. Ruffin, N. Y. L. J., June 5, 1973, p. 2, col. 1.) In such case any question as to the validity of the sentence has been rendered moot (People v. Nogan, 25 A D 2d 528).

The appeal should be dismissed.

Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Quinn and Lupiano, JJ.

Appeal dismissed.

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

Per Curiam.

Where defendant pleads guilty to a violation of article 220 of the Penal Law, a medical examination to determine whether defendant is a narcotic addict is not required prior to .sentencing unless the court has reason to believe from defendant’s behavior while in custody or before the court, that he may be .addicted. (Mental Hygiene Law, § 81.19; People v. Olson, 36 A D 2d 966.)

While the failure of the court to afford a defendant his right of allocution (CPL 380.50) ordinarily requires a reversal of the sentence and a remand for resentence (People ex rel. Emanuel v. McMann, 7 N Y 2d 342; People v. Sullivan, 3 N Y 2d 196) no useful purpose would be served thereby in this case, since defendant has served the sentence imposed (People v. Gifford, 2 A D 2d 642) and the error applies solely to the sentence. (People v. Ruffin, N. Y. L. J., June 5, 1973, p. 2, col. 1.) In such case any question as to the validity of the sentence has been rendered moot (People v. Nogan, 25 A D 2d 528).

The appeal should be dismissed.

Concur — Markowitz, P. J., Quinn and Lupiano, JJ.

Appeal dismissed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

76 Misc. 2d 414, 350 N.Y.S.2d 314, 1973 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 1502, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rivera-nyappterm-1973.