People v. Saez

121 A.D.2d 947, 505 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59045
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJuly 24, 1986
StatusPublished
Cited by248 cases

This text of 121 A.D.2d 947 (People v. Saez) 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. Saez, 121 A.D.2d 947, 505 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59045 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1986).

Opinions

Judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Covington, J.), rendered July 13, 1984, convicting defendant of robbery in the first degree and sentencing him to a term of imprisonment of 12½ to 25 years, modified, on the law and facts, to reverse as to the sentence imposed, vacate such sentence and remand for resentencing in compliance with CPL 390.20 (1), and otherwise affirmed.

CPL 390.20 (1) provides: "Requirement for felonies. In any case where a person is convicted of a felony, the court must [948]*948order a pre-sentence investigation of the defendant and it may not pronounce sentence until it has received a written report of such investigation.” Here, the Probation Department merely submitted a presentence report years old, brought up to date solely by the addition of a cover sheet and face sheet. No additional information was contained in these additions concerning defendant’s background, activities in prison or his life-style, accomplishments or employment history in the period of time since his release from prison. Defense counsel objected to the inadequacy of this report.

Incarceration in prison should have some effect on the character of the jailed person, either for good or bad. For this reason, a new probation report is useful. While defendant was incarcerated for most of the period between the preparation of the 1980 presentence report and the instant judgment of conviction, CPL 390.20 (1) mandates, and the public policy of our State requires, a current presentence report before sentence is imposed. (People v Selikoff, 35 NY2d 227, 238.) Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Asch and Kassal, JJ.

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

Related

People v. Camacho
2025 NY Slip Op 02136 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)
Ware v. State
906 A.2d 969 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2006)
People v. Breaux
24 A.D.3d 261 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Kuey
631 N.E.2d 574 (New York Court of Appeals, 1994)
People v. Washington
172 A.D.2d 460 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1991)
People v. Brown
157 A.D.2d 594 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1990)
People v. Gordon
155 A.D.2d 225 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Goolsby
153 A.D.2d 759 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Smith
150 A.D.2d 313 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1989)
People v. Laster
140 A.D.2d 233 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1988)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
121 A.D.2d 947, 505 N.Y.S.2d 148, 1986 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 59045, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-saez-nyappdiv-1986.