From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1990
158 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)

Opinion

February 2, 1990

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Erie County, Flynn, Jr., J.

Present — Denman, J.P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: Defendant contends that the trial court erred in submitting a verdict sheet to the jury containing a summary of the statutory elements of the offenses charged (see, CPL 310.20). The issue was not preserved for our review (cf., People v Nimmons, 72 N.Y.2d 830, 831) and we decline to reach it in the interest of justice (see, People v Barber, 154 A.D.2d 882; People v Ryan, 152 A.D.2d 962; People v Monroe, 135 A.D.2d 741, 742). The sentencing court did not err in fixing the amount of restitution without a hearing. The record was sufficient to allow the court to make a finding "as to the fruits of the offense" (Penal Law § 60.27) based upon the victim's testimony (see, People v Welsher, 154 A.D.2d 915). On this record defendant's sentence is not excessive.


Summaries of

People v. King

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Feb 2, 1990
158 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
Case details for

People v. King

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. FRANK KING, Appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Feb 2, 1990

Citations

158 A.D.2d 972 (N.Y. App. Div. 1990)
551 N.Y.S.2d 124

Citing Cases

People v. Oliver

The sentencing court properly denied the defendant's request to withdraw his guilty pleas since an order of…

People v. Hall

ives of interest or bias, the party calling the witness, in order to rebut that inference, may show that the…