From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 7, 1989
153 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)

Opinion

August 7, 1989

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


Ordered that the amended judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the amended sentence imposed; as so modified, the amended judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

Absent the imposition of the minimum sentence (People v Navarro, 91 A.D.2d 618) or a bargained sentence and express waiver (People v. Dowdell, 72 A.D.2d 622; People ex rel. Seaman v Warden, 53 A.D.2d 848), a court imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon finding that the defendant violated the terms of probation must obtain and consider an updated presentence report (see, CPL 390.20; People v. Jackson, 106 A.D.2d 93; People v. Hayes, 101 A.D.2d 893). Although a violation packet prepared by the Probation Department may suffice as the functional equivalent of an updated report, provided it informs the court of all "`relevant changes which may have occurred since preparation of the original presentencing report'" (People v Jackson, supra, at 98, quoting from People v. Halaby, 77 A.D.2d 717, 718), the record on this appeal lacks an express indication that such a packet was in fact before the court or that the court considered it. Consequently, the amended sentence of a term of imprisonment must be reversed (see, People v. Jackson, supra).

Furthermore, the court erred in failing to ask the defendant as required by CPL 380.50 whether he wished to make a statement in his own behalf prior to resentencing him (see, People v. Schiavone, 42 A.D.2d 738). Although this error was not preserved for appellate review (see, People v. Green, 54 N.Y.2d 878; People v. Regan, 88 A.D.2d 664), under the circumstances of this case, we have exercised our discretionary power to review that error in the interest of justice.

Accordingly, the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court for the purpose of resentencing the defendant based upon an updated presentence report and after compliance with CPL 380.50. Since our decision will require that the defendant be resentenced, we do not reach the issue of whether the imposition of an indeterminate term of 2 1/3 to 7 years' imprisonment was excessive (see, People v. Halaby, 77 A.D.2d 717, supra).

We have reviewed the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Lawrence, J.P., Kunzeman, Rubin and Kooper, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Roman

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Aug 7, 1989
153 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
Case details for

People v. Roman

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. EDWIN ROMAN, Appellant

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

Date published: Aug 7, 1989

Citations

153 A.D.2d 594 (N.Y. App. Div. 1989)
544 N.Y.S.2d 384

Citing Cases

People v. Tiedemann

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

People v. Simpson

Ordered that the amended sentence is reversed, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of…