People v. Spruill

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Spruill

48 A.D.2d 707, 368 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9764

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

DecidedMay 27, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 48 A.D.2d 707 (People v. Spruill) 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. Spruill, 48 A.D.2d 707, 368 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9764 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County, imposed January 16, 1973, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remitted to Criminal Term for resentence in accordance with the views set forth herein. The record indicates that the sentencing court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of CPL 380.50. Although the court asked the attorney for defendant whether he wished to speak on behalf of his client, the court precipitately interrupted him before any meaningful statement could be made. We also note that defendant has been certified a drug addict following a court-ordered examination. Accordingly, the procedures outlined in the Mental Hygiene Law should be adhered to. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Christ, 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, imposed January 16, 1973, convicting him of attempted robbery in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remitted to Criminal Term for resentence in accordance with the views set forth herein. The record indicates that the sentencing court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of CPL 380.50. Although the court asked the attorney for defendant whether he wished to speak on behalf of his client, the court precipitately interrupted him before any meaningful statement could be made. We also note that defendant has been certified a drug addict following a court-ordered examination. Accordingly, the procedures outlined in the Mental Hygiene Law should be adhered to. Rabin, Acting P. J., Hopkins, Martuscello, Latham and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

48 A.D.2d 707, 368 N.Y.S.2d 60, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9764, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-spruill-nyappdiv-1975.