People v. Gomez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gomez

181 A.D.2d 533, 581 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3694

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedMarch 17, 1992

StatusPublished

This text of 181 A.D.2d 533 (People v. Gomez) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Gomez, 181 A.D.2d 533, 581 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3694 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered April 19, 1990, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

In satisfaction of an indictment charging him with greater crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and received the sentence promised under the agreement. On appeal, defendant argues that he was sentenced on April 19, 1990 without benefit of a presentence report in violation of CPL 390.20. This argument is refuted by the record which indicates that a presentence report was stamped as having been delivered to the trial court on April 18, 1990. Defendant otherwise offers nothing to refute the presumption of timely receipt of the report prior to the sentencing date (see, People v Carmello, 114 AD2d 965). There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the sentence defendant received is excessive. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

— Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), rendered April 19, 1990, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of imprisonment of 2 to 4 years, unanimously affirmed.

In satisfaction of an indictment charging him with greater crimes, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal sale of a controlled substance in the fifth degree and received the sentence promised under the agreement. On appeal, defendant argues that he was sentenced on April 19, 1990 without benefit of a presentence report in violation of CPL 390.20. This argument is refuted by the record which indicates that a presentence report was stamped as having been delivered to the trial court on April 18, 1990. Defendant otherwise offers nothing to refute the presumption of timely receipt of the report prior to the sentencing date (see, People v Carmello, 114 AD2d 965). There is no merit to defendant’s contention that the sentence defendant received is excessive. Concur — Milonas, J. P., Wallach, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

181 A.D.2d 533, 581 N.Y.S.2d 39, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3694, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gomez-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack