People v. Pedraja

5 Citing cases

  1. People v. Simmons

    128 A.D.3d 534 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

    Defendant's challenges to his adjudication are unpreserved, and we decline to review them in the interest of justice. In any event, we find that the court properly applied the presumptive override for causing the death of a victim, “which results in a level three adjudication independent of any point assessments” (People v. Rivera, 123 A.D.3d 639, 639, 999 N.Y.S.2d 76 [1st Dept.2014] ), that there is no basis for a downward departure, and that the court properly exercised its discretion in declining to rule on matters it considered academic ( see People v. Pedraja, 49 A.D.3d 325, 852 N.Y.S.2d 761 [1st Dept.2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 711, 860 N.Y.S.2d 484, 890 N.E.2d 247 [2008] ). Moreover, even if, as defendant contends, his correct point score is only 70, we would still find no basis for a modification of the adjudication.

  2. People v. Evans

    127 A.D.3d 673 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

    Defendant's claim that the court was obligated to rule on a particular point assessment is unpreserved, and is in any event unavailing. The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to rule on a matter it considered academic ( see People v. Pedraja, 49 A.D.3d 325, 852 N.Y.S.2d 761 [1st Dept.2008], lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 711, 860 N.Y.S.2d 484, 890 N.E.2d 247 [2008] ).

  3. People v. Evans

    2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 3620 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

    Defendant's claim that the court was obligated to rule on a particular point assessment is unpreserved, and is in any event unavailing. The court properly exercised its discretion in declining to rule on a matter it considered academic (see People v Pedraja, 49 AD3d 325 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 711 [2008]). THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

  4. People v. Rodriguez

    123 A.D.3d 495 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 3 times

    In any event, the record does not indicate that defendant lacked a sufficient understanding of English. Defendant's argument regarding his request for an adjournment is academic, because it only relates to a possible assessment of points under a risk factor that played no part in the adjudication, and upon which no ruling was necessary (see People v Pedraja, 49 AD3d 325 [1st Dept 2008], lv denied 10 NY3d 711 [2008]). The court properly applied the presumptive override for a prior felony sex crime conviction.

  5. People v. Lucas

    118 A.D.3d 415 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 11 times

    Instead, the only appellate relief he requests is that this Court “remove” other points that he claims were improperly assessed. We find no basis for such relief, because the contested points were not essential to the court's determination and do not affect the validity of the order on appeal ( see People v. Pedraja, 49 A.D.3d 325, 852 N.Y.S.2d 761 [1st Dept.2008],lv. denied10 N.Y.3d 711, 860 N.Y.S.2d 484, 890 N.E.2d 247 [2008] ).