PEOPLE v. IOVINELLA

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ronald IOVINELLA, Appellant.

Decided: June 20, 2002

Before:  CREW III, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN, MUGGLIN and ROSE, JJ. Carl J. Silverstein, Monticello, for appellant. Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Michele Schettino, Law Intern), for respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Tomlinson, J.), rendered June 21, 1999, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the first degree.

Defendant was charged in a 16-count indictment with numerous crimes arising from the beating of his girlfriend on August 24, 1998. He pleaded guilty to assault in the first degree in full satisfaction of the indictment and was sentenced to 6 to 12 years in prison.

 On appeal, defendant contends that County Court erroneously permitted the victim to read the written statements of her mother and father at sentencing and allowed such statements to be made part of the record.   We disagree.   While CPL 380.50(2)(b) provides that the victim shall be permitted to make a statement pertinent to sentencing in instances where the defendant is to be sentenced for a crime which is a felony, the statute does not preclude the court from allowing statements by other individuals, particularly family members (see, People v. Arroyo, 284 A.D.2d 735, 736, 728 N.Y.S.2d 231, lv. denied 96 N.Y.2d 916, 732 N.Y.S.2d 632, 758 N.E.2d 658;  People v. Rivers, 262 A.D.2d 108, 108-109, 691 N.Y.S.2d 488, lv. denied 94 N.Y.2d 828, 702 N.Y.S.2d 599, 724 N.E.2d 391).   We find no compelling reason to reconsider our decision in People v. Arroyo (supra ).   Therefore, we decline to disturb the judgment of conviction.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

MUGGLIN, J.

CREW III, J.P., PETERS, SPAIN and ROSE, JJ., concur.

Copied to clipboard