People v. Randel
This text of 222 A.D.3d 663 (People v. Randel) 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.
Opinion
| People v Randel |
| 2023 NY Slip Op 06260 |
| Decided on December 6, 2023 |
| 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 December 6, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
JANICE A. TAYLOR, JJ.
2021-09250
v
Sean Randel, appellant.
Carol Kahn, New York, NY, for appellant.
William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Anna K. Diehn of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered December 3, 2021, convicting him of grand larceny in the fourth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's contention that the County Court erred in imposing both restitution and a mandatory surcharge is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Stebbins, 171 AD3d 1395, 1397; People v Francis, 82 AD3d 1263; People v Salmans, 49 AD3d 961, 962; People v Ziolkowski, 9 AD3d 915). In any event, the contention is without merit (see Penal Law § 60.35[6]; People v Quinones, 95 NY2d 349, 352; People v Hall, 303 AD2d 601).
The defendant's contention that the matter requires remittal to the County Court, Dutchess County, for a reconstruction hearing with regard to a purported off-the-record presentence conference is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]) and based, in part, on matter outside the record. In any event, the defendant failed to establish his entitlement to a reconstruction hearing (see People v Parris, 4 NY3d 41, 44, 49-50; see also Matter of Benjamin S., 55 NY2d 116, 120; People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520, 526; People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227).
LASALLE, P.J., CHAMBERS, CHRISTOPHER and TAYLOR, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Acting Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
222 A.D.3d 663, 199 N.Y.S.3d 220, 2023 NY Slip Op 06260, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-randel-nyappdiv-2023.