From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Dorino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 1994
200 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)

Opinion

January 18, 1994

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Demarest, J.).


Ordered that the amended sentence is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

Notwithstanding that certain limited information was disclosed to the sentencing court during the hearing on the charge that the defendant had violated a sentence of conditional discharge previously imposed, absent a waiver or the imposition of the minimum sentence, the court was without authority to impose an amended sentence based upon the defendant's violation of the conditions of his discharge without ordering the preparation of an up-to-date presentence report (see, People v. Cannon, 191 A.D.2d 452; People v. Simpson, 179 A.D.2d 831; People v. Roman, 153 A.D.2d 594). Although the defendant waived the preparation of a pre-sentence report prior to the imposition of the original sentence of conditional discharge, that waiver did not extend to the amended sentence since no further waiver was made on the record (CPL 390.20; People v Cintron, 191 A.D.2d 705).

Furthermore, although not preserved by a timely objection (see, People v. Green, 54 N.Y.2d 878), there is merit to the defendant's contention that the court failed to ask him whether he wished to make a statement prior to imposing a one-year sentence of imprisonment (CPL 380.50; see, People v. Roman, supra; People v. Perez, 135 A.D.2d 582, 584). Accordingly, upon resentencing, the court should not repeat this error.

We reject the defendant's contention that the court failed to exercise its discretion in arriving at the sentence imposed. The record reflects the court's findings and its reasons for imposing a definite one-year term of imprisonment. However, absent a probation report, we cannot adequately review whether the court providently exercised its discretion. Accordingly, we make no finding as to the propriety of the sentence imposed. Mangano, P.J., Bracken, Miller, O'Brien and Pizzuto, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Dorino

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Jan 18, 1994
200 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
Case details for

People v. Dorino

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. JOSEPH DORINO…

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

Date published: Jan 18, 1994

Citations

200 A.D.2d 632 (N.Y. App. Div. 1994)
606 N.Y.S.2d 741

Citing Cases

People v. Tiedemann

In this case, the Supreme Court pronounced sentence without affording either the prosecutor, the defense…

People v. Pabon

The general waiver of appeal rights which the defendant executed did not effectively waive his right to claim…