People v. Medero

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Medero

2017 NY Slip Op 7963, 155 A.D.3d 469, 63 N.Y.S.3d 674

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

DecidedNovember 14, 2017

Docket4955 5550/14

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 7963 (People v. Medero) 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. Medero, 2017 NY Slip Op 7963, 155 A.D.3d 469, 63 N.Y.S.3d 674 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered May 13, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence, or remanding for resentencing. Defendant did not preserve his argument that his presentence report was deficient because he was not produced for an interview, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. As in People v Rosa (150 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1094 [2017]), “[djefendant received the precise sentence he bargained for, and had he wished to be interviewed by the Probation Department, he could have called the court’s attention to the fact that he had not been produced for such an interview. Moreover, there is no indication that defendant was inclined to ask the court to exercise its discretion to impose a more lenient sentence than the one the parties agreed upon” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In any event, there is no statutory requirement that a defendant be interviewed (see CPL 390.30; People v Perea, 27 AD3d 960, 961 [3d Dept 2006]), and defendant’s presentence report contained all the necessary information.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J.), rendered May 13, 2015, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 2V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

Although defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence, or remanding for resentencing. Defendant did not preserve his argument that his presentence report was deficient because he was not produced for an interview, and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. As an alternative holding, we reject it on the merits. As in People v Rosa (150 AD3d 442, 443 [1st Dept 2017], lv denied 29 NY3d 1094 [2017]), “[djefendant received the precise sentence he bargained for, and had he wished to be interviewed by the Probation Department, he could have called the court’s attention to the fact that he had not been produced for such an interview. Moreover, there is no indication that defendant was inclined to ask the court to exercise its discretion to impose a more lenient sentence than the one the parties agreed upon” (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). In any event, there is no statutory requirement that a defendant be interviewed (see CPL 390.30; People v Perea, 27 AD3d 960, 961 [3d Dept 2006]), and defendant’s presentence report contained all the necessary information.

Concur—Richter, J.P., Mazzarelli, Kahn and Moulton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 7963, 155 A.D.3d 469, 63 N.Y.S.3d 674, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-medero-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack