People v. Prentice

• Citation: 459 N.Y.S.2d 194,91 A.D.2d 1202
• Parties: PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James D. PRENTICE, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 31 January 1983
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 194

459 N.Y.S.2d 194

91 A.D.2d 1202

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. James D. PRENTICE, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Fourth Department.

Jan. 31, 1983.

John W. Vogel, Dansville, for appellant.

Larry D. Bates by James Githler, Bath, for respondent.

Before HANCOCK, J.P., and DOERR, DENMAN, BOOMER and SCHNEPP, JJ.

MEMORANDUM:

Defendant was convicted of criminally negligent homicide after his tractor, i.e., a truck without a trailer, struck and killed an eight-year-old girl. Considering the evidence in the light most favorable to the People (see People v. Beiter, 77 A.D.2d 214, 217, 432 N.Y.S.2d 947), the proof establishes that defendant, a professional truck driver, was operating his vehicle on a portion of Route 17 in the City of Corning, which was unfamiliar to him, in rain and poor driving conditions and at an excessive rate of speed, when approximately 300 feet from the intersection of Route 17 and State Street he saw the traffic light turn red; that he commenced braking and downshifting but was unable to stop the tractor which ran the light and struck the girl as she was lawfully crossing the street; and that the vehicle effectively had no rear brakes, a fact that was known, or should have been known, by him. In our view the prosecution met its burden of establishing a "gross deviation" from the standard of care of a reasonable person under the circumstances and the evidence was sufficient to support the guilty verdict (see Penal Law, § 15.05, subd. 4; § 125.10).

Defendant was sentenced as a second felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment having a maximum of four years and a minimum of two years, the maximum allowable sentence (Penal Law, § 70.06, subds. 3, 4). The record shows that had defendant waived a hearing on a special information charging him with a prior felony conviction (see CPL 400.21) the minimum sentence would have been imposed. Although the "sentencing decision is a matter committed to the exercise of the court's discretion ..." (People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305, 437 N.Y.S.2d 961, 419 N.E.2d 864), it would appear that the maximum sentence was imposed in part as punishment for defendant's exercise of his statutory right to require the prosecution to prove that he had a prior felony conviction. Moreover, while the court in imposing sentence must consider the protection of the community and the deterrent effect on others similarly inclined, it should also consider the...