From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Cheatum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

March 10, 1989

Appeal from the Erie County Court, D'Amico, J.

Present — Callahan, J.P., Boomer, Green, Lawton and Davis, JJ.


Judgment unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed, in accordance with the following memorandum: The plea minutes show that defendant knowingly and voluntarily entered his plea and that there was no reason for the court to believe that defendant was incapable of understanding the nature of the charges against him. The probation report indicates that defendant was familiar with the court system since he "was very precise regarding past sentences, penalties * * * and details regarding his past convictions." Although the probation report also indicates that defendant scored below 50 on an intelligence quotient test, that score resulted from defendant's refusal to complete the test.

Because the court ordered restitution without holding a hearing and relied solely upon the probation report, we modify the sentence by deleting the provision for restitution (see, People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152; People v. Dixon, 134 A.D.2d 877).


Summaries of

People v. Cheatum

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department
Mar 10, 1989
148 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Cheatum

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. LOUIS CHEATUM…

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Fourth Department

Date published: Mar 10, 1989

Citations

148 A.D.2d 986 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Citing Cases

Renfro v. State

See also Holtzheimer v. State, 766 P.2d 1177 (Alaska App. 1989) and State v. Vinyard, 50 Wn. App. 888, 751…

People v. Williams

04 based on its reimbursement to one of the victims. This statement does not form a sufficient basis upon…