People v. Delgado

• Decision Date: 04 June 1992
• Citation: 80 N.Y.2d 780,587 N.Y.S.2d 271,599 N.E.2d 675
• Parties: , 599 N.E.2d 675 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Esteban DELGADO, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Julio DIAZ, Appellant. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darryl RAMSEY, Appellant.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

Page 271

587 N.Y.S.2d 271

80 N.Y.2d 780, 599 N.E.2d 675

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Esteban DELGADO, Appellant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Julio DIAZ, Appellant.

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Darryl RAMSEY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 4, 1992.

[80 N.Y.2d 782] Tamara Detloff and Ira Mickenberg, for appellant in the first above-entitled case.

Robert T. Johnson, Dist. Atty., (Eve E. Miller, of counsel), for respondent in the first above-entitled case.

Caroline Rule and Ira Mickenberg, for appellant in the second above-entitled case.

Robert M. Morgenthau, Dist. Atty., [80 N.Y.2d 783] (Hilary Hassler, of counsel), for respondent in the second above-entitled case.

Natalie Rea and Philip L. Weinstein, for appellant in the third above-entitled case.

[599 N.E.2d 676] Robert T. Johnson, Dist. Atty., (Y. Gail Goode, of counsel), for respondent in the third above-entitled case.

OPINION OF THE COURT MEMORANDUM.

In each case, 178 A.D.2d 275, 578 N.Y.S.2d 518, 177 A.D.2d 406, 576 N.Y.S.2d 251, 178 A.D.2d 269, 578 N.Y.S.2d 521, the order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

An intermediate appellate court has broad, plenary power to modify a sentence that is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances, even though the sentence may be within the permissible statutory range (CPL 470.15[6][b]; People v. Thompson, 60 N.Y.2d 513, 519, 470 N.Y.S.2d 551, 458 N.E.2d 1228). This sentence-review power may be exercised, if the interest of justice warrants, without deference to the sentencing court. Contrary to defendants' assertions, the Appellate Division did not misapprehend its power in these cases. We read the Appellate Division's statements that the sentencing courts did not abuse their discretion to mean that the Appellate Division did not find the sentences unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances.

Defendants' remaining contentions are either unpreserved or without merit.

WACHTLER, C.J., and SIMONS, KAYE, TITONE, HANCOCK and BELLACOSA, JJ., concur.

In each case: On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), order affirmed in a memorandum.