Opinion
December 28, 1987
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Meyerson, J.).
Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.
On a prior appeal by the defendant, this court found that the sentencing court (Bonomo, J.), which had originally adjudicated the defendant a persistent felony offender, had failed to set forth on the record the reasons why it was "`of the opinion that the history and character of the defendant and the nature and circumstances of his criminal conduct indicate[d] that extended incarceration and life-time supervision [would] best serve the public interest'" (People v Montes, 118 A.D.2d 812, 813, lv denied 68 N.Y.2d 772). Specifically, the court's conclusory recitation at sentencing that it had read the defendant's probation report and his record of convictions was deemed insufficient to comply with the command of Penal Law § 70.10 (2). Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in compliance with Penal Law § 70.10 and a hearing was conducted with respect to the issue of the defendant's status as a persistent felony offender.
Upon review of the record, we conclude that the resentencing court's conclusion that the defendant had been afforded every opportunity to be heard should not be disturbed. Inasmuch as the defendant's extensive criminal record and the vicious nature of the subject crime were clearly sufficient to support the court's adjudication of him as a persistent felony offender, remitting the matter for resentencing once again on the grounds asserted by the defendant would be pointless (see, People v Bouyea, 64 N.Y.2d 1140, 1142; People v Morse, 62 N.Y.2d 205, 225, appeal dismissed sub nom. Vega v New York, 469 U.S. 1186; People v Harris, 61 N.Y.2d 9, 20). Mollen, P.J., Lawrence, Weinstein and Kooper, JJ., concur.