People v. Baker

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Sanders

    134 A.D.3d 1351 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)   Cited 2 times

    The court also considered the seriousness of the underlying conduct and the threat that defendant poses to society. In view of the foregoing and the fact that the agreed-upon sentence was less than the maximum permissible sentence (see Penal Law ยง 70.804[a][iv] ), we do not find the presence of extraordinary circumstances nor an abuse of sentencing discretion warranting a reduction in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 3[c]; 6[b]; People v. Baker, 92 A.D.3d 967, 967, 937 N.Y.S.2d 632 2012; People v. Smurphat, 91 A.D.3d 980, 981, 936 N.Y.S.2d 356 2012, lv. denied 18 N.Y.3d 962, 944 N.Y.S.2d 491, 967 N.E.2d 716 2012 ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

  2. People v. Colsten

    120 A.D.3d 1508 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    g to report to his probation officer, failing to find employment and having unsupervised contact with a teenage girl. County Court indicated that it was inclined to resentence defendant to two years in prison to be followed by postrelease supervision of four years and, after considering defendant's arguments for leniency, did so. Defendant now appeals, arguing solely that the resentence was harsh and excessive. Defendant twice violated the terms of his probation in the brief time that he was on probation, and notably continued to have unsupervised contact with children under the age of 18 notwithstanding that such contact was prohibited. Under these circumstances, we perceive neither an abuse of discretion by County Court nor the existence of extraordinary circumstances that would warrant a reduction of the resentence in the interest of justice ( see People v. Fitzgerald, 100 A.D.3d 1268, 1269, 954 N.Y.S.2d 687 [2012], lv. denied20 N.Y.3d 1011, 960 N.Y.S.2d 354, 984 N.E.2d 329 [2013]; People v. Baker, 92 A.D.3d 967, 937 N.Y.S.2d 632 [2012] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

  3. People v. Gassner

    118 A.D.3d 1221 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 7 times

    Notwithstanding the recommendation of probation within the presentence investigation report, the record establishes that, in imposing the resentence, County Court considered all relevant factors, including defendant's criminal record, which included a prior violation of probation. As our review of the record reveals no extraordinary circumstances or any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the resentence in the interest of justice, it will not be disturbed ( see People v. Baker, 92 A.D.3d 967, 967, 937 N.Y.S.2d 632 [2012];People v. Hope, 32 A.D.3d 1115, 1116, 821 N.Y.S.2d 482 [2006] ). ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.