People v. Moronta

2018 NY Slip Op 5336
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 18, 2018
Docket2016-12883
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 5336 (People v. Moronta) 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. Moronta, 2018 NY Slip Op 5336 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Moronta (2018 NY Slip Op 05336)
People v Moronta
2018 NY Slip Op 05336
Decided on July 18, 2018
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided on July 18, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
MARK C. DILLON, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2016-12883
(Ind. No. 15-01303)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Berinzon Moronta, appellant.


Clement S. Patti, Jr., White Plains, NY, for appellant.

Anthony A. Scarpino, Jr., District Attorney, White Plains, NY (Brian R. Pouliot and William C. Milaccio of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Barry E. Warhit, J.), rendered September 14, 2016, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

While this appeal was pending, the defendant successfully moved before the Supreme Court, pursuant to CPL 440.20, to vacate his sentence on the ground that the sentencing court had failed to consider whether he should be adjudicated a youthful offender (see People v Rudolph, 21 NY3d 497). By order dated March 1, 2018, following a resentencing proceeding, the original sentence was vacated and a resentence was imposed.

The defendant's contention that the sentencing court failed to consider whether he should be adjudicated a youthful offender has been rendered academic by his subsequent resentencing.

The defendant's contention that the original sentence was excessive also has been rendered academic, as that sentence was vacated by the Supreme Court on March 1, 2018, and superseded by the resentence (see People v Torres, 35 AD3d 769; People v Smith, 304 AD2d 1077).

As no other contentions have been raised by the defendant, the judgment must be affirmed.

DILLON, J.P., CHAMBERS, MALTESE and BARROS, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Rudolph
997 N.E.2d 457 (New York Court of Appeals, 2013)
People v. Torres
35 A.D.3d 769 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 5336, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-moronta-nyappdiv-2018.