People v. Williams

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Williams

47 A.D.2d 729, 366 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8986

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

DecidedMarch 6, 1975

StatusPublished

This text of 47 A.D.2d 729 (People v. Williams) 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. Williams, 47 A.D.2d 729, 366 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8986 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment rendered in Supreme Court, New York County, on December 12, 1972, insofar as it imposes sentence, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, for resentencing; and otherwise affirmed. The record indicates that at the time of sentencing, the court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of CPL 380.50 in [730]*730not inquiring of defendant whether he wished to make a statement personally ip. his own behalf. Failure to dó so constitutes error necessitating a reversal of the sentence and a remand for'resentedeing. (People v. Lots, 42 A D 2d 900; People v. Williams, 42 A D 2d 931; People v. Rojas, 42 A D 2d 945; and cases cited therein.) We have considered the other points raised and find them without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Tiízer and Nunez, JJ.

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

Judgment rendered in Supreme Court, New York County, on December 12, 1972, insofar as it imposes sentence, is unanimously reversed, on the law, and the case remanded to the Criminal Term of the Supreme Court, New York County, for resentencing; and otherwise affirmed. The record indicates that at the time of sentencing, the court failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of CPL 380.50 in [730]*730not inquiring of defendant whether he wished to make a statement personally ip. his own behalf. Failure to dó so constitutes error necessitating a reversal of the sentence and a remand for'resentedeing. (People v. Lots, 42 A D 2d 900; People v. Williams, 42 A D 2d 931; People v. Rojas, 42 A D 2d 945; and cases cited therein.) We have considered the other points raised and find them without merit. Concur — Kupferman, J. P., Lupiano, Tiízer and Nunez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

47 A.D.2d 729, 366 N.Y.S.2d 2, 1975 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 8986, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-williams-nyappdiv-1975.