People v. Santos

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Santos

109 A.D.2d 901, 486 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47433

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided March 25, 1985·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), imposed July 11, 1983.

Sentence affirmed.

The record establishes that a complete and thorough presentence report was received by the court prior to sentencing (CPL 390.20 [1]; 390.30). In addition, defendant’s presentence memorandum, containing evaluations of his mental health, was duly filed with the court prior to the pronouncement of sentence (CPL 390.40 [1]), thereby giving defendant the opportunity to refute [902]*902the contents of the presentence report (People v Ranieri, 43 AD2d 1012). Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion by not postponing sentencing for the purpose of allowing defendant to submit a copy of his presentence memorandum to the probation officer who had prepared the presentence report.

Finally, the sentence imposed does not warrant appellate modification (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by defendant, as limited by his brief, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Mclnerney, J.), imposed July 11, 1983.

Sentence affirmed.

The record establishes that a complete and thorough presentence report was received by the court prior to sentencing (CPL 390.20 [1]; 390.30). In addition, defendant’s presentence memorandum, containing evaluations of his mental health, was duly filed with the court prior to the pronouncement of sentence (CPL 390.40 [1]), thereby giving defendant the opportunity to refute [902]*902the contents of the presentence report (People v Ranieri, 43 AD2d 1012). Thus, the court did not abuse its discretion by not postponing sentencing for the purpose of allowing defendant to submit a copy of his presentence memorandum to the probation officer who had prepared the presentence report.

Finally, the sentence imposed does not warrant appellate modification (People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Mangano, J. P., Gibbons, Brown and Lawrence, JJ., concur.

People v. Santos, 109 A.D.2d 901, 486 N.Y.S.2d 792, 1985 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 47433 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

109 A.D.2d 901 (People v. Santos) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related