People v. Mannina
89 A.D.3d 1038, 933 N.Y.2d 570
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 22, 2011·Published·Cited by 7 cases
Opinion
The defendant’s contention that the County Court improperly sentenced him upon his violation of a condition of his probation [1039] without ordering an updated presentence report is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Gambichler, 25 AD3d 722, 723 [2006]) and, in any event, without merit (see People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278, 282 [1994]; cf. People v Pons, 134 AD2d 378, 378-379 [1987]).
The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Skelos, J.P, Angiolillo, Belen, Lott and Roman, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
People v. Mannina, 89 A.D.3d 1038, 933 N.Y.2d 570 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2011).
89 A.D.3d 1038 (People v. Mannina) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
People v. McGhee
111 A.D.3d 961 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. Camino
105 A.D.3d 1055 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2013)
People v. McGinn
96 A.D.3d 977 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)
People v. Gledhill
91 A.D.3d 886 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2012)