People v McGinn
2012 NY Slip Op 05025 [96 AD3d 977]
June 20, 2012
Appellate Division, Second Department
As corrected through Wednesday, August 1, 2012


The People of the State of New York,Respondent,
v
Michael McGinn, Appellant.

[*1]Arza Feldman, Uniondale, N.Y., for appellant.

Thomas J. Spota, District Attorney, Riverhead, N.Y. (Marcia R. Kucera of counsel), forrespondent.

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County(R. Doyle, J.), rendered January 24, 2011, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposedby the same court, upon a finding that he had violated conditions thereof, upon his admission,and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of operating a vehiclewhile under the influence of alcohol, as a felony, and aggravated unlicensed operation of a motorvehicle in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the Supreme Court improperly sentenced him withoutobtaining an updated presentence report is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v Gledhill, 91AD3d 886 [2012]; People vMannina, 89 AD3d 1038 [2011]; People v Thompson, 65 AD3d 1390 [2009]) and, in any event, iswithout merit (see People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278, 282-283 [1994]; People vCannon, 208 AD2d 942, 943 [1994]; People v Jackson, 106 AD2d 93, 98 [1984]).

The defendant failed to preserve for appellate review his contention that his sentence shouldbe vacated because the Supreme Court did not afford either the prosecutor or defense counsel theopportunity to make a statement with respect to the sentence and did not ask the defendant if hewished to make a statement in his own behalf, in violation of CPL 380.50 (1) (see CPL470.05 [2]; People v McCant, 79AD3d 908 [2010]; People vChin, 69 AD3d 752, 753 [2010]; People v Chi Fong Chen, 56 AD3d 488, 489 [2008]), and thecontention is, in any event, without merit (see People v McClain, 35 NY2d 483, 491[1974], cert denied 423 US 852 [1975]; People v Regan, 88 AD2d 664 [1982]).Rivera, J.P., Eng, Chambers, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.


NYPTI Decisions © 2026 is a project of New York Prosecutors Training Institute (NYPTI) made possible by leveraging the work we've done providing online research and tools to prosecutors.

NYPTI would like to thank New York State Division of Criminal Justice Services, New York State Senate's Open Legislation Project, New York State Unified Court System, New York State Law Reporting Bureau and Free Law Project for their invaluable assistance making this project possible.

Install the free RECAP extensions to help contribute to this archive. See https://free.law/recap/ for more information.