Shader v. People
| Decision Date | 21 November 1996 |
| Citation | 650 N.Y.S.2d 350,233 A.D.2d 717 |
| Parties | In the Matter of Timothy SHADER, Appellant, v. The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
Timothy Shader, Collins, in pro. per.
Sol Greenberg, District Attorney (George H. Barber, of counsel), Albany, for respondent.
Before MIKOLL, J.P., and CREW, WHITE, CASEY and YESAWICH, JJ.
Appeal from an order of the County Court of Albany County (Breslin, J.), entered September 5, 1995, which denied petitioner's application pursuant to CPL 390.50 for a copy of his presentence report.
In 1995, petitioner's application for parole release was denied by the State Board of Parole. Petitioner filed a notice of appeal from said determination with the State Division of Parole and thereafter made a motion in Albany County Court, pursuant to CPL 390.50, to obtain a copy of his presentence report for use in connection with that appeal. County Court denied the motion and petitioner appeals.
We reverse. In Matter of Blanche v. People, 193 A.D.2d 991, 598 N.Y.S.2d 102, we recognized that CPL 390.50(1) permits disclosure of a presentence report in collateral proceedings upon a proper factual showing for the need thereof. Contrary to the conclusion reached by County Court, we are of the view that petitioner made such a showing inasmuch as a presentence report is one of the factors required to be considered by the Board of Parole upon application for release (see, Executive Law § 259-i[1][a]; [2][c] ).
We disagree, however, with petitioner's assertion that he is automatically entitled to an unredacted copy of his presentence report. It has been consistently recognized that such reports consist of confidential material, which may be appropriately withheld from disclosure (see, People v. Perry, 36 N.Y.2d 114, 365 N.Y.S.2d 518, 324 N.E.2d 878; Holmes v. State of New York, 140 A.D.2d 854, 528 N.Y.S.2d 686; cf., CPL 390.50[2][a] ). Accordingly, upon remittal, County Court is directed to review petitioner's presentence report in camera to determine what portion, if any, should be redacted, except such portion from disclosure and set forth the reasons for its action (see, People v. Butler, 54 A.D.2d 56, 60-61, 387 N.Y.S.2d 180).
ORDERED that the order is reversed, on the law, without costs, and matter remitted to the County Court of Albany County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this court's decision.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Fishel
...a need for disclosure, he or she is never “automatically entitled to an unredacted copy of [the PSI]” (Matter of Shader v. People, 233 A.D.2d 717, 717, 650 N.Y.S.2d 350 [1996] ). Rather, in light of the requirement of specific authorization and given the sentencing court's discretion to exc......
-
People v. Minemier
...information (see CPL 390.50[2] ; People v. Perry, 36 N.Y.2d 114, 120, 365 N.Y.S.2d 518, 324 N.E.2d 878 ; Matter of Shader v. People, 233 A.D.2d 717, 717, 650 N.Y.S.2d 350 ). Finally, based on our review of the record and the relevant factors, we conclude that the court's refusal to adjudica......
-
Rogner v. People
...of a presentence report in collateral proceedings upon a proper factual showing for the need thereof" ( Matter of Shader v. People, 233 A.D.2d 717, 717, 650 N.Y.S.2d 350 [1996] ). Petitioner's presentence report was one of the factors the Board was required to consider upon his application ......
-
The People Of The State Of N.Y. v. Tevault
...the defendant makes a proper factual showing of need. Matter of Allen v. People, 243 A.D.2d 1039 (3rd Dept. 1997) Matter of Shader v. People, 233 A.D.2d 717 (3rd Dept. 1996); Matter of Kilaore v. People, 274 A.D.2d 636 (3rd Dept. 2000); People v. Zarzuela, 11 Misc.3d 1076[A]) (Sup. Ct., Que......