People v. Segar

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Segar

295 A.D.2d 628, 744 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6711

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

DecidedJune 24, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 295 A.D.2d 628 (People v. Segar) 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. Segar, 295 A.D.2d 628, 744 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6711 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered November 6, 2000, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the [629]*629same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the County Court improperly resentenced him on his violation of probation because it lacked an updated presentence report (see People v Pitter, 272 AD2d 416; People v Oyebanji, 246 AD2d 560; CPL 470.05). In any event, his contention is without merit, as he consented, through defense counsel, to proceed to sentencing without an updated report (see People v Moon, 225 AD2d 826; see generally People v Figueroa, 227 AD2d 501).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

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

—Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered November 6, 2000, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the [629]*629same court, upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant has not preserved for appellate review his contention that the County Court improperly resentenced him on his violation of probation because it lacked an updated presentence report (see People v Pitter, 272 AD2d 416; People v Oyebanji, 246 AD2d 560; CPL 470.05). In any event, his contention is without merit, as he consented, through defense counsel, to proceed to sentencing without an updated report (see People v Moon, 225 AD2d 826; see generally People v Figueroa, 227 AD2d 501).

The sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80). Feuerstein, J.P., O’Brien, Townes and Cozier, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

295 A.D.2d 628, 744 N.Y.S.2d 869, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6711, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-segar-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack