People v. De Torres
| Citation | 96 A.D.2d 609,464 N.Y.S.2d 608 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joan De TORRES, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 07 July 1983 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Susan J. Coxeter, Albany, for appellant.
Sol Greenberg, Albany County Dist. Atty., Albany (John P.M. Wappett, Albany, of counsel) for respondent.
Before SWEENEY, J.P., and KANE, MIKOLL, YESAWICH and WEISS, JJ.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered June 4, 1982, which revoked defendant's probation and imposed sentence.
Defendant was previously convicted upon her plea of guilty of the crimes of bribery in the second degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the second degree. She was sentenced to 60 days in the Albany County Penitentiary and five years' probation. Subsequently, following a hearing, she was found guilty of violating the terms of her probation and her probation was revoked. Defendant was then resentenced to concurrent terms of imprisonment and this appeal ensued.
Defendant contends that the court improperly relied on the updated presentence report dated June 4, 1981 due to the fact that the report contained prejudicial and misleading remarks. It is also claimed that this report was not disclosed to defendant's counsel one day prior to sentencing as required by CPL 390.50 (subd. 2). Defendant, however, made no objection to this report at the time of sentencing either as to its contents or concerning the date it was received. Nor did defendant submit any presentence memorandum as authorized by CPL 390.40. Under these circumstances, wherein defendant failed to complain at a time when the People would have had an opportunity to challenge her contentions, she should not now be allowed to raise them for the first time on this appeal (People v. Allyn, 92 A.D.2d 692, 460 N.Y.S.2d 379). Consequently, the judgment should be affirmed.
Judgment affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Lawrence
...no such objection at sentencing and that he has therefore failed to preserve that contention for our review (see People v. De Torres, 96 A.D.2d 609, 609–610, 464 N.Y.S.2d 608 ). Contrary to his further contention, “ ‘[t]he court did not base its sentence on a crime of which defendant had be......
-
Blanche v. People
...his appeal of the criminal matter. He therefore cannot obtain a copy of the report under that section (see generally, People v. De Torres, 96 A.D.2d 609, 464 N.Y.S.2d 608). Petitioner's request is instead governed by the provisions of CPL 390.50(1). That section provides that a presentence ......
-
People v. Moquette
...N.Y.S.2d 88). Additionally, this appeal is foreclosed by defendant's failure to object at the time of sentencing (see, People v. De Torres, 96 A.D.2d 609, 464 N.Y.S.2d 608). Were we to reach the merits, we would affirm because the allegedly prejudicial information did not induce County Cour......
-
People v. Karlas
...generally, People v. Briggs, 184 A.D.2d 1014, 586 N.Y.S.2d 919; People v. Walworth, 167 A.D.2d 622, 562 N.Y.S.2d 852; People v. De Torres, 96 A.D.2d 609, 464 N.Y.S.2d 608). In any event, the defendant and his counsel received a full opportunity to discuss and supplement the presentence repo......