PEOPLE v. BECK (1999)

 We reject the contention that defendant was denied an opportunity to present a meaningful presentence memorandum (see, CPL 390.40 [1] ).   Defendant had more than two months between the entry of the guilty plea and sentencing to prepare such memorandum.   Further, any prejudice resulting from the failure to make the presentence report available to defense counsel prior to the date of sentencing (see, CPL 390.50[2][a] ) was eliminated by County Court's offer to postpone sentencing one day to permit defendant and defense counsel to review and respond to the presentence report (see, People v. Mullgrav, 137 A.D.2d 839, 840, 525 N.Y.S.2d 302, lv. denied 71 N.Y.2d 1030, 530 N.Y.S.2d 566, 526 N.E.2d 58).

 By pleading guilty, defendant waived his right to review of his contention that his right to a fair trial was prejudiced when two jurors viewed him in shackles (see, People v. Green, 75 N.Y.2d 902, 904-905, 554 N.Y.S.2d 821, 553 N.E.2d 1331, cert. denied 498 U.S. 860, 111 S.Ct. 165, 112 L.Ed.2d 130) and forfeited his right to review of his contention that the Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion (see, People v. Gerber, 182 A.D.2d 252, 260-261, 589 N.Y.S.2d 171, lv. denied 80 N.Y.2d 1026, 592 N.Y.S.2d 676, 607 N.E.2d 823;  People v. Johnson, 141 A.D.2d 848, 530 N.Y.S.2d 189).

Judgment unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: