Case Summary: The People of the State of New York v. Vino Green

Factual and Procedural Background

This is an appeal to the Court of Appeals from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department, concerning a resentencing that occurred on January 8, 1980. At the resentencing three attorneys addressed the court on behalf of the defendant; the opinion indicates that the comment of one attorney appears to have led to a reduction from the original sentence. At no time did any of these attorneys request that the defendant be afforded his statutory right to make a personal statement in his own behalf, nor was the alleged failure to comply with that statutory mandate otherwise brought to the sentencing court's attention. The Court of Appeals issued a memorandum affirming the order of the Appellate Division. The opinion was argued September 11, 1981 and decided October 15, 1981.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the provisions of CPL 380.50 apply to occasions of resentencing as well as to initial sentencing.
2. Whether the failure to afford the defendant his statutory right to make a personal statement at the resentencing—when no request was made by counsel and the omission was not called to the court's attention—was preserved for appellate review.
3. Whether the sentencing court's error (the alleged failure to permit a personal statement) was of constitutional dimension.

Arguments of the Parties

The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The Court began by noting that the provisions of CPL 380.50 apply to resentencing as well as to initial sentencing, and therefore were applicable at the January 8, 1980 resentencing. The Court then recited the operative factual circumstances: three attorneys spoke on the defendant's behalf at the resentencing, and one attorney's comment appears to have produced a reduction of the original sentence. Critically, none of the attorneys requested that the defendant personally exercise the statutory right to make a statement, nor was the omission brought to the court's attention by other means.

Given these facts, the Court concluded that the sentencing court's failure to afford the defendant a personal statement was an error that was not of constitutional dimension (citing People v McClain). Because the error was not constitutional and could have been readily remedied if it had been called to the court's attention at the time, the omission was not preserved for appellate review. The Court therefore affirmed the Appellate Division's order.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The order of the Appellate Division is affirmed.

Implications: As a direct consequence of the ruling, the defendant's challenge to the resentencing based on an alleged failure to permit a personal statement was held not preserved for appellate review and the Appellate Division's decision stands. The Court treated the error as non-constitutional and therefore subject to preservation requirements; the opinion does not announce a new rule beyond applying CPL 380.50 to resentencing and relying on existing authority (People v McClain) regarding the constitutional dimension of the error.

Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Meyer concurred. The memorandum states simply: "Order affirmed in a memorandum."