People v. Stevenson

• Citation: 604 N.Y.S.2d 261,199 A.D.2d 350
• Parties: The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William STEVENSON, Appellant.
• Decision Date: 13 December 1993
• Court: New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Page 261

604 N.Y.S.2d 261

199 A.D.2d 350

The PEOPLE, etc., Respondent, v. William STEVENSON, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Division,

Second Department.

Dec. 13, 1993.

Philip L. Weinstein, New York City (Sandra Engle, of counsel), for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, Dist. Atty., Brooklyn (Roseann B. MacKechnie, Jodi L. Mandel, Rose Auslander and Migdalia A. Castillo, of counsel), for respondent.

Before BRACKEN, J.P., and SULLIVAN, LAWRENCE and JOY, JJ.

MEMORANDUM BY THE COURT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Wade, J.), rendered June 9, 1992, convicting him of robbery in the second degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the sentencing court penalized him for his refusal to cooperate with the Probation Department. However, a sentencing court is permitted to consider all relevant factors in arriving at a sentence (see, People v. Farrar, 52 N.Y.2d 302, 305, 437 N.Y.S.2d 961, 419 N.E.2d 864) and may consider the extent of a defendant's cooperation or lack thereof with the authorities (see, People v. DeTomaso, 186 A.D.2d 1023, 590 N.Y.S.2d 823; People v. Warden, 141 A.D.2d 913, 914-915, 529 N.Y.S.2d 230). The sentencing court herein considered all the relevant factors. Notably, the court stated that the sentence was appropriate given the defendant's prior criminal history. We agree. The defendant's sentence is neither harsh nor excessive (see, People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

The defendant's remaining contentions are unpreserved for appellate review and we decline to consider them in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction.