People v. Raucci
| Decision Date | 10 March 1988 |
| Citation | 136 A.D.2d 48,525 N.Y.S.2d 730 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph RAUCCI, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Englert, Stillman & McHugh (Dennis M. Englert, of counsel), Schenectady, for appellant.
John B. Poersch, Dist. Atty. (Michael T. McGarry, of counsel), Schenectady, for respondent.
Before MAHONEY, P.J., and WEISS, LEVINE, HARVEY and MERCURE, JJ.
Defendant entered a plea of guilty to the crimes of manslaughter in the first degree and two counts of attempted murder in the second degree in satisfaction of an 11-count indictment. He was thereafter sentenced to three terms of 8 1/3 to 25 years' imprisonment; two of which would run concurrently and the third to be served consecutively to the other two. The charges arose out of an incident in which defendant allegedly fired two shots from a shotgun, one into the vehicle in which his estranged wife, Kathy Raucci, and their seven-year-old child were seated, and one at Mark Ferrence, the wife's boyfriend, as he was entering the vehicle. In addition to wounding his wife and Ferrence, the intended victims, one of the shots also struck and killed his son.
As the only condition of the plea bargain, the prosecutor agreed not to make a recommendation at sentencing. A different prosecutor was present at sentencing and, after acknowledging his obligation not to recommend a specific sentence, he outlined the permissible range of sentences which could be imposed and also informed County Court that defendant could be sentenced to consecutive terms of imprisonment. The prosecutor then launched into a lengthy commentary on the four criteria which are normally considered by a court at the time of sentencing, i.e., rehabilitation, isolation of the defendant, deterrence and retribution. The prosecutor informed County Court that, in his view, defendant's potential for rehabilitation was poor and, accordingly, this criterion should not weigh heavily in the court's decision. In commenting upon isolation as a factor, the prosecutor stated: "For the good of society, for the protection of us all, [for the] protection of Kathy Raucci, I urge Your Honor to put heavy emphasize [sic ] on isolation in the sentencing equation." As to deterrence, the prosecutor declared that And finally, in commenting upon retribution as a factor for the court's consideration, the prosecutor stated:
I would like Your Honor to consider * * * the young life snuffed out, the young tortured body, all those pellets of lead in it, the fact that [Kathy] Raucci for the rest of her life perhaps would have to carry the scars, the lead in her arm, the heartbreak of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Felman
...to preserve the present issues for appeal, we find that the matter warrants review in the interest of justice ( see, People v. Raucci, 136 A.D.2d 48, 50, 525 N.Y.S.2d 730; People v. Maye, 129 A.D.2d 204, 205, 517 N.Y.S.2d 330; cf., People v. George, 137 A.D.2d 876, 524 N.Y.S.2d 557). It is ......
-
People v. Strong
...100, 112, 371 N.Y.S.2d 471, 332 N.E.2d 338 [1975], cert. denied 423 U.S. 950, 96 S.Ct. 372, 46 L.Ed.2d 287 [1975] ; People v. Raucci, 136 A.D.2d 48, 49, 525 N.Y.S.2d 730 [1988] ). The paramount and overarching concern is the result upon society; that is, in what manner a particular sentence......
-
People v. Hoeltzel
...174 A.D.2d 847, 847, lv denied 78 N.Y.2d 969; People v Muller, 174 A.D.2d 838, 839; People v Felman, 137 A.D.2d 341, 343-344; People v Raucci, 136 A.D.2d 48, 50; People v Di Tullio, 85 A.D.2d 783, 784; People v James, 45 A.D.2d While under some circumstances such a prosecutorial breach rega......
-
People v. Sarafian
...of that provided in presentence investigations and reports, and we find nothing therein so inflammatory (see, People v. Raucci, 136 A.D.2d 48, 50, 525 N.Y.S.2d 730) or intimidating (see, People v. Julia, 40 A.D.2d 560, 333 N.Y.S.2d 978) as to prejudice defendant or render the sentencing jud......