People v. Marin
Decision Date | 22 January 1990 |
Citation | 550 N.Y.S.2d 407,157 A.D.2d 804 |
Parties | The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. Mario MARIN, Appellant. |
Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
John T. McClintock, New York City, for appellant.
Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Barbara D. Underwood and Tammy J. Smiley, of counsel; Alyson Gill, on the brief), for respondent.
Before MOLLEN, P.J., and MANGANO, THOMPSON and BROWN, JJ.
MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Douglass, J.), rendered May 6, 1986, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of his plea allocution is not preserved for appellate review since the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea prior to sentencing (see, People v. Pellegrino, 60 N.Y.2d 636, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938). In any event, contrary to the defendant's position, the plea minutes clearly indicate that the defendant, who was fully advised of his rights and the consequences of his plea, entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily (see, People v. Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 471 N.Y.S.2d 61, 459 N.E.2d 170).
The defendant's contention that the sentencing court erred in imposing sentence based upon an incomplete sentencing report is similarly unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant did not raise this claim at sentencing (see, CPL 470.05[2]; People v. Morales, 127 A.D.2d 797, 512 N.Y.S.2d 194). In any event, the defendant cannot be heard to complain about the absence of a complete presentence report inasmuch as the report specifically indicates that it was incomplete because the defendant refused to be interviewed by the Department of Probation (see, People v. Morales, supra; People v. Scales, 121 A.D.2d 578, 503 N.Y.S.2d 629).
We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contention and find it to be without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
People v. Ousmane
...the defendant is unpreserved for appellate review, as he did not raise this claim at sentencing (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Marin, 157 A.D.2d 804, 805, 550 N.Y.S.2d 407 ). In any event, this contention is without merit. The defendant cannot be heard to complain about the absence of a com......
-
People v. English
...was incomplete is without merit (see, People v. Greene, 209 A.D.2d 541, 619 N.Y.S.2d 74 [2d Dept., Nov. 14, 1994]; People v. Marin, 157 A.D.2d 804, 550 N.Y.S.2d 407). Moreover, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d The defendant moved purs......
-
People v. Lindsay
...not raise this claim at sentencing (see CPL 470.05[2] ; People v. Ousmane, 183 A.D.3d 762, 763, 121 N.Y.S.3d 887 ; People v. Marin, 157 A.D.2d 804, 805, 550 N.Y.S.2d 407 ). In any event, this contention is without merit. The defendant cannot be heard to complain about the absence of a compl......
-
People v. Blas
...presentence report is unpreserved for appellate review (see, People v. Thompson, 186 A.D.2d 294, 588 N.Y.S.2d 778; People v. Marin, 157 A.D.2d 804, 550 N.Y.S.2d 407). In any event, the defendant cannot now complain that his absence, by virtue of the fact that he had absconded, resulted in t......