People ex rel. Bester v. Johnston
| Decision Date | 13 November 1959 |
| Parties | PEOPLE of the State of New York ex rel. John BESTER, Relator-Appellant, v. W. C. JOHNSTON, as Director of Dannemora State Hospital, Dannemora, New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John Bester in pro. per.
Louis J. Lefkowitz, Atty. Gen., for respondent.
Before FOSTER, P. J., and BERGAN, COON, HERLIHY and REYNOLDS, JJ.
Appeal from a decision of the Clinton County Court denying an application for a writ of habeas corpus.
Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment, upon the recommendation of a jury, by the Court of General Sessions, County of New York, following a conviction of murder in the first degree. Appellant contends that he should have been asked the question required by sec. 480 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the precise language of the statute. The record shows that the defendant was asked, in the presence of his counsel, the following question on two occasions at the time of his sentence: 'John Bester, what have you now to say why judgment of the Court should not be pronounced against you according to law?' The question is even broader and more inclusive than the statute requires, and is substantial compliance therewith. It is not essential that the precise language of the statute be used, if the question fully affords an opportunity to voice any reason why sentence should not be pronounced. There is nothing in People ex rel. Miller v. Martin, 1 N.Y.2d 406, 153 N.Y.S.2d 202, which holds to the contrary. Defendant's contention that he was given no opportunity to reply is without merit. Defendant was represented by counsel, and if either defendant or his counsel had said anything or even attempted to say anything at that point, the record would so indicate.
Decision unanimously affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Clark v. State
...why sentencing should not be pronounced, it is unnecessary that the precise language of the statute be used. People ex rel. Bester v. Johnston, 9 A.D.2d 827, 192 N.Y.S.2d 947 (1959); Valdez v. State, 479 S.W.2d 927 (Tex.Cr.App.1972); and 24 C.J.S. Criminal Law § 1576b. Here the question ask......
-
People v. Rossi
...Procedure was complied with; and there is, of course, no requirement of an answer to the prescribed inquiry. (People ex rel. Bester v. Johnston, 9 A.D.2d 827, 192 N.Y.S.2d 947.) Appellant's additional contentions are likewise Order affirmed. ...
-
People ex rel. Kaminsky v. Silberglitt
...by counsel and counsel addressed the court. These facts constitute compliance with this section (see People ex rel. Bester v. Johnston, 9 A.D.2d 827, 192 N.Y.S.2d 947). Accordingly, reargument is granted, the order of May 25, 1961 is vacated. The amended petition is dismissed and the relato......
-
People ex rel. Bester v. Johnston
...New York, Appellate Division, Third Department. March 22, 1960. Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. 9 A.D.2d 827, 192 N.Y.S.2d 947. ...