People v. Cobado, 104 A.D.3d 1322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Cobado, 104 A.D.3d 1322 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
7 citation events (7 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Griffin (nyappdiv, 2014-09-26)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Griffin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the resentencing, inasmuch as defense counsel was able to secure an advantageous resentence for defendant (see People v Cobado, 104 AD3d 1322, 1323 [2013]; see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Griffin
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · confidence medium
Finally, we reject defendant’s contention that he was denied effective assistance of counsel at the resentencing, inasmuch as defense counsel was able to secure an advantageous resentence for defendant (see People v Cobado, 104 AD3d 1322, 1323 [2013]; see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Jarvis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2019 · signal: see · confidence high
The court obtained from defendant a waiver of an updated report, which is generally permissible where, as here, the "defendant had been continually incarcerated between the time of the initial sentencing and resentencing and at the time of . . . resentencing [the defendant] was afforded the opportunity to supply information about his [or her] subsequent conduct" ( People v Kuey , 83 NY2d 278, 282-283 [1994]; see People v Cobado , 104 AD3d 1322 , 1322-1323 [4th Dept 2013]).
discussed Cited "see" CAMPBELL, SHANNON, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Where, as here, [the] defendant has been continually incarcerated between the time of the initial sentencing and resentencing, to require an update . . . does not advance the purpose of CPL 390.20 (1)” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Cobado, 104 AD3d 1322, 1322-1323 ; see generally People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278, 282-283 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Campbell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Where, as here, [the] defendant has been continually incarcerated between the time of the initial sentencing and resentencing, to require an update . . . does not advance the purpose of CPL 390.20 (1)” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Cobado, 104 AD3d 1322, 1322-1323 [2013]; see generally People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278, 282-283 [1994]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Campbell
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · signal: see · confidence high
Where, as here, [the] defendant has been continually incarcerated between the time of the initial sentencing and resentencing, to require an update . . . does not advance the purpose of CPL 390.20 (1)” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Cobado, 104 AD3d 1322, 1322-1323 [2013]; see generally People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278, 282-283 [1994]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Matthew M. Cobado
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 22, 2013.
104 A.D.3d 1322
Cited by 6 opinions  |  Published

Appeal from a resentence of the Cattaraugus County Court (Larry M. Himelein, J.), rendered August 8, 2011. Defendant was resentenced upon his conviction of rape in the first degree (four counts) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the resentence so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a resentence pursuant to which County Court added various terms of postrelease supervision (PRS) to the sentence previously imposed in 2003 on his conviction, following a jury trial, of four counts of rape in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.35 [1]) and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (§ 265.03 [2]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court erred in resentencing him without ordering an updated presentence report in accordance with CPL 390.20 (see People v Lard, 71 AD 3d 1464, 1465 [2010], lv denied 14 NY3d 889 [2010]). In any event, that contention lacks merit. “Where, as here, [the] defendant has been continually incarcerated between[*1323] the time of the initial sentencing and resentencing, to require an update . . . does not advance the purpose of CPL 390.20 (1)” (id. [internal quotation marks omitted]; see People v Kuey, 83 NY2d 278, 282-283 [1994]; People v James, 4 AD3d 774, 775 [2004]).

We reject defendant’s further contention that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel at resentencing (see generally People v Baldi, 54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]). Although defense counsel did not say anything on the record on defendant’s behalf, the court ultimately imposed the minimum authorized term of PRS for the rape convictions (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2-a] [c]), and an equal term of PRS for the weapons offense. Present — Smith, J.P, Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and Whalen, JJ.