People v. Pistone

3 Citing cases

  1. People v. Burgos

    186 A.D.2d 467 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)

    That failure was confirmed by defendant's trial counsel, who had attended the meeting at which the defendant had told the prosecutor that he had no information to give. Accordingly, the record sufficiently states the reasons why the conditional sentence based upon defendant's cooperation was not imposed (People v Pistone, 143 A.D.2d 852). Defendant has also failed to show that the enhanced sentence imposed was an abuse of discretion. Concur — Carro, J.P., Milonas, Ellerin and Asch, JJ.

  2. People v. Ortiz

    180 A.D.2d 429 (N.Y. App. Div. 1992)   Cited 2 times

    Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.). The record shows that the terms of the plea bargain were clearly stated, and that defendant, with the advice of counsel, repeatedly answered that he understood it. The People recommended, and defendant received, the promised sentence following the required allocution at the plea (see, People v Emanuel, 179 A.D.2d 356; People v. Jenkins, 176 A.D.2d 597). Defendant's argument that there should have been a hearing to determine the extent of his cooperation is unpreserved, and, in any event, is without merit, there being no evidence that the information he provided was of any use (compare, People v Pistone, 143 A.D.2d 852). Nor does the record support defendant's contention that the court was deprived of the benefit of presentence report. Rather, defendant was liberally permitted to correct any alleged inaccuracies therein.

  3. People v. Maurizio

    170 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    In any event, we reject defendant's argument that the court's failure to hold a compliance hearing regarding defendant's lack of cooperation with authorities requires that he be resentenced. At sentencing, he did not dispute or challenge the People's statement that he failed to cooperate and accepted the sentence of a prison term of 1 1/2 to 4 1/2 years offered to him by the People (see, People v Garcia, 163 A.D.2d 218; cf., People v Pistone, 143 A.D.2d 852). Appeal dismissed.