People v. Lopez

• Decision Date: 14 February 2013
• Citation: People v. Lopez, 103 A.D.3d 460, 962 N.Y.S.2d 19, 2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 983 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
• Parties: The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William LOPEZ, Defendant–Appellant.
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

103 A.D.3d 460

962 N.Y.S.2d 19

2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 00983

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,

v.William LOPEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, New York.

Feb. 14, 2013.

Steven Banks, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Lawrence T. Hausman of counsel), for appellant.

Cyrus R. Vance, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Frank Glaser of counsel), for respondent.

SWEENY, J.P., SAXE, DeGRASSE, ABDUS–SALAAM, FEINMAN, JJ.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), entered on or about May 11, 2010, which denied defendant's CPL 440.46 motion for resentencing, unanimously affirmed.

Since no material facts were contested, the resentencing court was not required to conduct an evidentiary hearing ( see People v. Anonymous, 85 A.D.3d 414, 924 N.Y.S.2d 365 [1st Dept. 2011], lv. denied18 N.Y.3d 922, 942 N.Y.S.2d 461, 965 N.E.2d 963 [2012] ). The court complied with the resentencing statute when defendant was “brought before the court and given an opportunity to be heard” ( id. at 414, 924 N.Y.S.2d 365). Giving a defendant an opportunity to be heard is mandatory, but the taking of testimony is not. Here, the court permitted defendant to make an extensive oral statement, and it considered written submissions from the witnesses whom defendant had sought to call. Defendant received a full opportunity to inform the court of factors supporting his resentencing motion.

The court properly exercised its discretion in concluding that substantial justice dictated denial of resentencing, given defe...