sentencing court hearing in New York

2025Relevant to the penalty imposed by a sentencing court are factors that include, among other things, a defendant's demeanor, criminal and social history, truthfulness, attitudes toward society, and prospects for rehabilitation ( see Grayson , 438 US at 50 ; see also CPL 390.30 [1]).

2025Relevant to the penalty imposed by a sentencing court are factors that include, among other things, a defendant's demeanor, criminal and social history, truthfulness, attitudes toward society, and prospects for rehabilitation ( see Grayson , 438 US at 50 ; see also CPL 390.30 [1]).

2019Thus, so much of the judgment as directed the defendant to make restitution, plus a surcharge, must be vacated and the matter remitted to the sentencing court for a hearing and a new determination as to whether the defendant should be required to make restitution, plus the authorized surcharge, and, if so, the proper amount and the manner of payment ( see People v Martinez , 144 AD3d 708 ; People v Rodriguez , 73 AD3d at 817 ; People v Vella , 176 AD2d 768 ).

2016Accordingly, so much of the judgment as directed the defendant to make restitution must be vacated and the matter remitted to the sentencing court for a hearing and a new determination as to whether the defendant should be *709 required to make restitution and, if so, the proper amount and the manner of payment (see People v Rodriguez, 73 AD3d at 817 ; People v Vella, 176 AD2d 768 [1991]; People v Kronenberg, 167 AD2d 483, 484 [1990]; People v Barnes, 135 AD2d 825, 826 [1987]).

2019Thus, so much of the judgment as directed the defendant to make restitution, plus a surcharge, must be vacated and the matter remitted to the sentencing court for a hearing and a new determination as to whether the defendant should be required to make restitution, plus the authorized surcharge, and, if so, the proper amount and the manner of payment ( see People v Martinez , 144 AD3d 708 ; People v Rodriguez , 73 AD3d at 817 ; People v Vella , 176 AD2d 768 ).

2016Accordingly, so much of the judgment as directed the defendant to make restitution must be vacated and the matter remitted to the sentencing court for a hearing and a new determination as to whether the defendant should be *709 required to make restitution and, if so, the proper amount and the manner of payment (see People v Rodriguez, 73 AD3d at 817 ; People v Vella, 176 AD2d 768 [1991]; People v Kronenberg, 167 AD2d 483, 484 [1990]; People v Barnes, 135 AD2d 825, 826 [1987]).

1992Accordingly, the matter is remitted for a hearing to determine the amount of restitution owed by defendant (see, People v Ramirez, supra; People v Clougher, supra; People v Thigpen, 60 AD2d 860 ).

1984(People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152 ; People v Julye, 64 AD2d 614 ; People v Thigpen, 60 AD2d 860 ; Penal Law, § 65.10, subd 2, par [g].) 3 The People candidly concede that the sentencing court was in error in delegating that authority to the Probation Department.

1988Therefore, the sentence must be modified to vacate the order of restitution and the matter remitted to the sentencing court for a hearing on the amount of loss or damage caused by defendant (Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; § 65.10 [2] [g]; People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 157-159 ; People v Dixon, supra; People v Sommer, supra).

1984(People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152 ; People v Julye, 64 AD2d 614 ; People v Thigpen, 60 AD2d 860 ; Penal Law, § 65.10, subd 2, par [g].) 3 The People candidly concede that the sentencing court was in error in delegating that authority to the Probation Department.

2022As fully described above, this issue was repeatedly raised before the sentencing court by defense counsel, who "made his position with respect to the ruling . . . known to the court" (CPL 470.05[2]; cf. People v Stowe , 15 AD3d 597, 598 ).

2019Thus, so much of the judgment as directed the defendant to make restitution, plus a surcharge, must be vacated and the matter remitted to the sentencing court for a hearing and a new determination as to whether the defendant should be required to make restitution, plus the authorized surcharge, and, if so, the proper amount and the manner of payment ( see People v Martinez , 144 AD3d 708 ; People v Rodriguez , 73 AD3d at 817 ; People v Vella , 176 AD2d 768 ).

2003The court properly denied defendant’s motion to set aside his sentence as a discretionary persistent felony offender, made on the ground that the procedure under which it was imposed involved unconstitutional factfinding by the sentencing court in violation of Apprendi v New Jersey ( 530 US 466 [2000]).

2003We need not decide whether People v Rosen ( 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]), to the extent that it upholds the constitutionality of the discretionary persistent felony offender procedure, conflicts with Ring v Arizona (536 US 584 [2002]), because the particular facts upon which the sentencing court based its determination were all permissible under Apprendi , in that they constituted facts found by the jury in the instant case, prior convictions and undisputed matters of record.

2003We need not decide whether People v Rosen ( 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]), to the extent that it upholds the constitutionality of the discretionary persistent felony offender procedure, conflicts with Ring v Arizona (536 US 584 [2002]), because the particular facts upon which the sentencing court based its determination were all permissible under Apprendi , in that they constituted facts found by the jury in the instant case, prior convictions and undisputed matters of record.

2003We need not decide whether People v Rosen ( 96 NY2d 329 [2001], cert denied 534 US 899 [2001]), to the extent that it upholds the constitutionality of the discretionary persistent felony offender procedure, conflicts with Ring v Arizona (536 US 584 [2002]), because the particular facts upon which the sentencing court based its determination were all permissible under Apprendi , in that they constituted facts found by the jury in the instant case, prior convictions and undisputed matters of record.

1995Wright merely sanctioned an inherent authority of the sentencing court where the error was a "slip of a tongue” or as later affirmed in Campbell (supra, at 169 ) the Court had "merely misspoken.” The Legislature has clearly defined the parameters for correcting illegal sentences.

1992Accordingly, the matter is remitted for a hearing to determine the amount of restitution owed by defendant (see, People v Ramirez, supra; People v Clougher, supra; People v Thigpen, 60 AD2d 860 ).

1992Accordingly, the matter is remitted for a hearing to determine the amount of restitution owed by defendant (see, People v Ramirez, supra; People v Clougher, supra; People v Thigpen, 60 AD2d 860 ).

1992The colloquy between the sentencing court and defense counsel was insufficient to establish the victim’s monetary loss (cf., People v Kelsky, 144 AD2d 386, 387 , lv denied 73 NY2d 787 ).

1988Therefore, the sentence must be modified to vacate the order of restitution and the matter remitted to the sentencing court for a hearing on the amount of loss or damage caused by defendant (Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; § 65.10 [2] [g]; People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 157-159 ; People v Dixon, supra; People v Sommer, supra).

1988Therefore, the sentence must be modified to vacate the order of restitution and the matter remitted to the sentencing court for a hearing on the amount of loss or damage caused by defendant (Penal Law § 60.27 [2]; § 65.10 [2] [g]; People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152, 157-159 ; People v Dixon, supra; People v Sommer, supra).

1986The sentencing court at bar, however, properly determined that defendant had knowingly and voluntarily pleaded guilty to the predicate felony (see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9 ).

1984(People v Fuller, 57 NY2d 152 ; People v Julye, 64 AD2d 614 ; People v Thigpen, 60 AD2d 860 ; Penal Law, § 65.10, subd 2, par [g].) 3 The People candidly concede that the sentencing court was in error in delegating that authority to the Probation Department.