Opinion
110683
09-02-2021
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Dashau TITTENSOR, Also Known as DEBO, Appellant.
G. Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant. Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
G. Scott Walling, Slingerlands, for appellant.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
Before: Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark, Aarons and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Aarons, J.
Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Coccoma, J.), rendered March 13, 2017 in Schenectady County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crimes of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (two counts), assault in the second degree and resisting arrest.
Defendant pleaded guilty to an indictment charging him with two counts of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, assault in the second degree and resisting arrest with the understanding that the sentence imposed would not exceed 12 years in prison. Supreme Court thereafter sentenced defendant to concurrent prison terms of five years, followed by three years of postrelease supervision, on the convictions of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and a lesser term on the conviction of resisting arrest, to run consecutively to a two-year prison term, followed by three years of postrelease supervision, on the assault in the second degree conviction. Defendant appeals.
Defendant contends that he was denied due process because Supreme Court, in imposing sentence, relied upon "materially untrue assumptions or misinformation" contained in the presentence investigation report and the People's sentencing memorandum ( People v. Naranjo, 89 N.Y.2d 1047, 1049, 659 N.Y.S.2d 826, 681 N.E.2d 1272 [1997] [internal quotation marks and citations omitted]). Inasmuch as defendant failed to object at sentencing to any alleged inaccurate or improper information, his contention is unpreserved for our review (see People v. Stacchini, 108 A.D.3d 866, 867, 969 N.Y.S.2d 218 [2013] ; People v. Rosado, 300 A.D.2d 838, 840–841, 752 N.Y.S.2d 139 [2002], lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 619, 757 N.Y.S.2d 830, 787 N.E.2d 1176 [2003] ). We are unpersuaded by defendant's contention that the sentence imposed was unduly harsh and excessive. As the record reflects that the court considered appropriate mitigating and aggravating factors, including that a police officer was injured as a result of defendant's conduct while being placed under arrest, we find no abuse of discretion or any extraordinary circumstances warranting the reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v. Smith, 193 A.D.3d 1260, 1269, 147 N.Y.S.3d 221 [2021], lv denied 37 N.Y.3d 968, 148 N.Y.S.3d 754, 171 N.E.3d 230 [2021] ; People v. Rawlinson, 170 A.D.3d 1425, 1430, 97 N.Y.S.3d 319 [2019], lv denied 33 N.Y.3d 1107, 106 N.Y.S.3d 687, 130 N.E.3d 1297 [2019] ).
Egan Jr., J.P., Lynch, Clark and Reynolds Fitzgerald, JJ., concur. ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.