People v. Freeman, 67 A.D.3d 1202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Freeman, 67 A.D.3d 1202 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
22 citation events (22 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Infinger (nyappdiv, 2021-05-13)
Treatment trajectory · 2010 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2010 2018 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 12 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Infinger
N.Y. App. Div. · 2021 · confidence medium
Defense counsel highlighted these errors during the sentencing proceeding and "[f]ailing to redact erroneous information from the [presentence investigation report] create[s] an unjustifiable risk of future adverse effects to defendant in other contexts" ( People v Freeman , 67 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]; compare People v Taylor , 118 AD3d 1044, 1048 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1043 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Washington
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · confidence medium
A failure "to redact erroneous information from the PS[R] create[s] an unjustifiable risk of future adverse effects to defendant in other contexts, including appearances before the Board of Parole or other agencies" ( People v Freeman , 67 AD3d 1202, 1203 [3d Dept 2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Cherry
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Having reviewed the confidential PSR in the record before us and confirmed that the objected-to language from the arresting officer remains in the PSR, we order that such statement be redacted from all copies of defendant's PSR ( see People v Freeman , 67 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Russell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
Indeed, where a PSI contains “clearly erroneous information,” such information should be redacted based upon the “unjustifiable risk of future adverse effects to [the] defendant” (People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1202, 1203 [2009]; see People v Taylor, 118 AD3d 1044, 1048 [2014], lv denied 23 NY3d 1043 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Russell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Although defendant correctly contends that erroneous information in a preplea report “create[s] an unjustifiable risk of future adverse effects to [him] in other contexts” (People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]), we conclude that defendant has made no showing that the information in the preplea report was inaccurate (see People v Rudduck, 85 AD3d 1557, 1557-1558 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 861 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Russell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
Although defendant correctly contends that erroneous information in a preplea report “create[s] an unjustifiable risk of future adverse effects to [him] in other contexts” (People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]), we conclude that defendant has made no showing that the information in the preplea report was inaccurate (see People v Rudduck, 85 AD3d 1557, 1557-1558 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 861 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Taylor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
While erroneous information should be redacted from a PSI (see People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1202 [2009]), County Court did not err in denying redaction and instead ordering that the sentencing minutes accompany the PSI.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Taylor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
While erroneous information should be redacted from a PSI (see People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1202 [2009]), County Court did not err in denying redaction and instead ordering that the sentencing minutes accompany the PSI.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wisniewski v. Michalski
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
In any event, petitioner has made no showing that the information contained in the 2009 PSR is inaccurate (see People v Rudduck, 85 AD3d 1557, 1557-1558 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 861 [2011]; cf. People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1202 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Wisniewski v. Michalski
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: cf. · confidence medium
In any event, petitioner has made no showing that the information contained in the 2009 PSR is inaccurate (see People v Rudduck, 85 AD3d 1557, 1557-1558 [2011], lv denied 17 NY3d 861 [2011]; cf. People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1202 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rudduck
N.Y. App. Div. · 2011 · confidence medium
Although defendant correctly contends that erroneous information in a PSR “create[s] an unjustifiable risk of future adverse effects to [him] in other contexts” (People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1203 [2009]), we conclude that “defendant has made no showing that the information [in the PSR] was inaccurate” (People v Anderson, 184 AD2d 922, 923 [1992], lv denied 80 NY2d 901 [1992]; see People v Whalen, 99 AD2d 883, 884 [1984]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Qoya Jones
N.Y. App. Div. · 2010 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Though this notation would not be admissible at a trial, it was permissible as it was based on information gathered during the investigation and was relevant to sentencing (see People v Thomas, 2 AD3d 982, 984 [2003], lv denied 1 NY3d 602 [2004]; People v Whalen, 99 AD2d 883, 884 [1984]; compare People v Freeman, 67 AD3d 1202, 1202-1203 [2009]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Germaine Freeman
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 19, 2009.
67 A.D.3d 1202
Kane.
Cited by 21 opinions  |  Published
Kane, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered January 8, 2008, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree.

After defendant pleaded guilty to rape in the third degree, County Court imposed the agreed-upon sentence of 1 to 3 years in prison. Defendant does not challenge the judgment of conviction. Rather, his appeal focuses on the court’s determination not to redact certain information from the presentence investigation report (hereinafter PSI).

The information should have been redacted because the PSI contained clearly erroneous information and was inconsistent with statutory procedures. The probation officer who authored the PSI completed and attached a risk assessment instrument on the form contemplated under the Sex Offender Registration Act (see Correction Law art 6-C [hereinafter SORA]). This presented several problems. The risk assessment instrument is not legislatively intended to be considered at sentencing where incarceration will be imposed, rendering presentation of the form premature (see Correction Law § 168-n [3]). Second, under SORA the Probation Department is not the proper agency to complete a risk assessment instrument (see Correction Law § 168-n [2], [3] [requiring recommendation from Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders]; cf. Correction Law § 168-d [3][*1203] [requiring district attorney to file written statement of determinations sought]). Third, County Court noted that the form contained serious errors. The court pointed out each error and recited the correct information under each such category for the record, but declined defense counsel’s request to redact the entire form from the PSI.

Failing to redact erroneous information from the PSI created an unjustifiable risk of future adverse effects to defendant in other contexts, including appearances before the Board of Parole or other agencies. If the sentencing minutes are inadvertently separated from the PSI (see CPL 380.70, 390.60), or an agency relies on the unedited original version at the Probation Department (see CPL 390.30), defendant will have to not only refute the information in the PSI but also explain why the sentencing court apparently did not correct the PSI. An inaccurate PSI could keep a defendant incarcerated for a longer duration of time, affect future determinations of his or her legal status in court, as well as affect other rights regulated by the state. These risks are enough to justify redaction. Accordingly, we now order that the risk assessment instrument be redacted from all copies of defendant’s PSI.

Peters, J.P., Rose, Lahtinen and Malone Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, and the County Court of Columbia County is directed to redact the risk assessment instrument from all copies of defendant’s presentence investigation report.