§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Sergio Rodriguez, Appellant.

Brief

43 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Farrar

    52 N.Y.2d 302 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 1,115 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Expressing that "while the court legitimately may indicate that a proposed sentence is fair and acceptable, the necessary exercise of discretion cannot be fixed immutably at the time of the plea, for the decision requires information that may be unavailable then"

  2. People v. Laureano

    87 N.Y.2d 640 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 345 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Construing N.Y. Penal Law § 70.25

  3. People v. Vasquez

    88 N.Y.2d 561 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 301 times
    Holding that wad of paper towels used to gag victim during the assault was dangerous instrument

  4. Matter of Brusco v. Braun

    84 N.Y.2d 674 (N.Y. 1994)   Cited 279 times
    In Brusco, for example, the Article 78 proceeding sought to compel the issuance of a judgment to which the Petitioner was entitled by law.

  5. People v. Cronin

    60 N.Y.2d 430 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 362 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Reversing trial court's preclusion of expert testimony on the impact of alcohol, marijuana and Valium on defendant's ability to act purposefully

  6. People v. Ramirez

    89 N.Y.2d 444 (N.Y. 1996)   Cited 174 times
    Upholding consecutive robbery sentences where the defendant forcibly took the belongings of two security guards in a hotel parking lot

  7. People v. Fuller

    57 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 1982)   Cited 252 times
    In People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152, 455 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1982), the New York Court of Appeals applied a narrow exception to the preservation doctrine in a case where the trial court exceeded its statutory authority, thereby levying an unlawful sentence. Id. at 156-59, 455 N.Y.S.2d at 255-56; accord, e.g., People v. Samms, 95 N.Y.2d 52, 55-56, 710 N.Y.S.2d 310, 312-313 (2000) (failure to object at the time of sentencing did not render the challenge unpreserved, because the sentence was imposed in violation of a statutory mandate and therefore was unauthorized).

  8. People v. Richardson

    100 N.Y.2d 847 (N.Y. 2003)   Cited 100 times
    Implying that courts have inherent power to sua sponte vacate an illegal sentence and resentence a defendant

  9. People v. Naranjo

    89 N.Y.2d 1047 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 107 times
    In People v Naranjo (89 NY2d 1047, 1049), the Court said "[g]enerally, as a matter of due process, an offender may not be sentenced on the basis of `materially untrue' assumptions or `misinformation' [citations omitted]" but "[r]ather * * * `the sentencing court must assure itself that the information * * * is reliable and accurate' [citation omitted]."

  10. Bernstein v. Sovereign

    66 A.D.3d 1 (N.Y. App. Div. 2009)   Cited 74 times
    Explaining that an appellate court need not address arguments regarding unnecessary factual findings if other legal grounds on which the lower court relied were valid