People v. Melendez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Melendez

194 A.D.2d 494, 599 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6780

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

DecidedJune 29, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 194 A.D.2d 494 (People v. Melendez) 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. Melendez, 194 A.D.2d 494, 599 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6780 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered May 5, 1992, convicting defendant, after a plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 4 Vi years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence to 6 months imprisonment and 4 Vi years of probation, and the matter remanded to the trial court for the imposition of the conditions of probation.

Defendant, who neither speaks nor reads English, pleaded guilty in exchange for a sentence of 6 months imprisonment and 4 Vi years probation. Prior to the original sentence date, sentence was adjourned, and letters in English were sent to the defendant. He did not appear on the adjourned date. Five days later, and after an unrelated assault charge was dismissed, he explained that he had not understood the letters, one from the court and one from counsel, in English, regarding the new sentence date. The defendant had the assistance of a court interpreter at each court appearance.

Under these circumstances, and with the People’s consent to imposition of the promised sentence, both at the time of sentencing and on appeal, we find the sentence imposed excessive and reduce it accordingly. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

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

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Howard Bell, J.), rendered May 5, 1992, convicting defendant, after a plea of guilty, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of IV2 to 4 Vi years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to reduce the sentence to 6 months imprisonment and 4 Vi years of probation, and the matter remanded to the trial court for the imposition of the conditions of probation.

Defendant, who neither speaks nor reads English, pleaded guilty in exchange for a sentence of 6 months imprisonment and 4 Vi years probation. Prior to the original sentence date, sentence was adjourned, and letters in English were sent to the defendant. He did not appear on the adjourned date. Five days later, and after an unrelated assault charge was dismissed, he explained that he had not understood the letters, one from the court and one from counsel, in English, regarding the new sentence date. The defendant had the assistance of a court interpreter at each court appearance.

Under these circumstances, and with the People’s consent to imposition of the promised sentence, both at the time of sentencing and on appeal, we find the sentence imposed excessive and reduce it accordingly. Concur—Rosenberger, J. P., Kupferman, Ross and Kassal, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

194 A.D.2d 494, 599 N.Y.S.2d 969, 1993 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-melendez-nyappdiv-1993.