People v. Wade

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wade

49 A.D.2d 770, 372 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10771

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 1975

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 49 A.D.2d 770 (People v. Wade) 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. Wade, 49 A.D.2d 770, 372 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10771 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County, imposed July 5, 1973, upon his conviction of robbery in the second degree, on his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term not to exceed 12 years. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remitted to the Criminal Term for resentencing. The sentence imposed was not excessive. However, CPL 380.50 provides that, before pronouncing sentence, the court must ask the defendant whether he wishes to make a statement personally on his own behalf. Substantial compliance with this requirement is sufficient and an ambiguous invitation may be held sufficient in some circumstances (People v McLain, 35 NY2d 483). In the present case, although counsel was specifically invited to speak, nothing was said to defendant. To comply with the statute, there must be some invitation to defendant to speak. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett 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, Queens County, imposed July 5, 1973, upon his conviction of robbery in the second degree, on his plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate prison term not to exceed 12 years. Sentence reversed, on the law, and case remitted to the Criminal Term for resentencing. The sentence imposed was not excessive. However, CPL 380.50 provides that, before pronouncing sentence, the court must ask the defendant whether he wishes to make a statement personally on his own behalf. Substantial compliance with this requirement is sufficient and an ambiguous invitation may be held sufficient in some circumstances (People v McLain, 35 NY2d 483). In the present case, although counsel was specifically invited to speak, nothing was said to defendant. To comply with the statute, there must be some invitation to defendant to speak. Rabin, Acting P. J., Latham, Cohalan, Margett and Christ, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

49 A.D.2d 770, 372 N.Y.S.2d 731, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10771, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wade-nyappdiv-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack