The People of the State of New York v. Robert Camarano, Defendant. (2026)

On May 27, 2010, under Indictment Number 3914/08, this defendant was convicted, following a jury trial, of Murder in the Second Degree (Penal Law § 125.25[1]). Separately, under Indictment Number 2918/08, defendant was convicted of Criminal Mischief in the Third Degree (Penal Law § 145.05[2]). On June 21, 2010, defendant was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of 25-years-to-life on the murder count and an indeterminate term of two-to-four-years' imprisonment on the criminal mischief count, to be served consecutively.

On direct appeal defendant claimed, inter alia, that he was innocent and that the investigating detectives worked for local drug dealers who were responsible for the victim's murder, that the court should not have allowed him to proceed pro se at trial, and that his consecutive sentences were excessive. On December 13, 2018, the Appellate Division, First Department unanimously affirmed defendant's convictions and sentences (People v Camarano, 167 AD3d 500 [1st Dept 2018]). The Court of Appeals denied leave to appeal on February 19, 2019 (32 NY3d 1202 [2019]). In the years that followed, defendant has repeatedly, unsuccessfully challenged his conviction (see Court Records).¹

Now, in pro se papers dated July 14, 2025, defendant moves this court, pro se, for an order setting aside his sentences pursuant to Civil Procedure Law (CPL) § 440.20. In support of his motion, defendant contends that he was sentenced "without a presentence investigation report," and, thus, that his sentences are "invalid as a matter of law" and "illegally imposed" (Def Aff at 1). The People oppose, arguing that defendant's motion is procedurally barred and meritless.

For the reasons stated herein, defendant's motion is denied in its entirety.

Facts

In 2008, sixty-year-old defendant and sixty-year-old Michelle Hyams, lived together and were in a romantic, albeit turbulent, relationship, with neighbors often hearing them argue. On June 8, 2008, Ms. Hyams told defendant that she was ending the relationship and, at 11:15pm that night, defendant called 911 to say that he had come home to find his "wife" stabbed. Indeed, when the police arrived, they found Ms. Hyams dead and naked on the bathroom floor; an autopsy later revealed that she had been beaten, stabbed, and strangled. A bloody knife and two notes were found in the apartment; one of the notes, apparently typed by Ms. Hyams, indicated that she feared that defendant would kill her if she did not end the relationship. Surveillance video and other evidence showed that they had been home alone. Statements made by defendant were contradicted by physical and forensic evidence.

When defendant was brought to the police station for questioning, hours after the discovery of Ms. Hyams's body, he threw a chair at a two-way mirror in the interview room, shattering the glass.

On June 13, 2008, defendant was indicted for third-degree criminal mischief, and, on August 13, 2008, he was indicted for second-degree murder. Throughout the pendency of the cases, defendant filed numerous motions and complaints, demanded new attorneys, and continuously attempted to represent himself. Ultimately, after being represented by three different lawyers, defendant was permitted to proceed pro se.

After hearings and trial, on May 27, 2010, the jury found defendant guilty of all counts. The case was adjourned to June 18, 2010 for sentence, but on that day defendant refused to appear in court for a claimed medical reason and the case was adjourned to June 21, 2010. That day, although defendant arrived at the courthouse, he refused to leave the holding cell adjacent the courtroom to appear for sentence. After consultation with his legal advisor, defendant still refused. After review of the pre-sentence investigation report prepared by the Department of Probation the court sentenced defendant in his absence following his repeated refusal to appear as directed.

The Law

Where a person is convicted of a felony, the court must order a presentence investigation of the defendant and may not pronounce sentence until it has received a written report of that investigation (CPL § 390.20[1]). The report must contain current information relevant to the imposition of sentence (see People v Laster, 140 AD2d 233 [1st Dept 1988], citing People v Saez, 121 AD2d 947 [1st Dept 1986] [three-and-a-half-year-old presentence report devoid of information regarding the defendant's background, activities in prison, or history following release from prison was insufficient]).

Under CPL § 440.30[4], "upon considering the merits of the motion, the court may deny it without conducting a hearing" on four grounds. Relevant here, a court may summarily deny a motion brought under CPL §§ 440.10 or 440.20 where "an allegation of fact essential to support the motion is refuted by unquestionable documentary proof" (CPL § 440.30[4][c]). A court may also summarily deny such a motion where an essential allegation of fact therein is "contradicted by a court record or other official document" and under the circumstances there "is no reasonable possibility" the essential allegation is true (CPL § 440.30[4][d]).

Conclusions of Law

Here, the sole allegation of fact that forms the basis of defendant's motion—that he was sentenced without a pre-sentence report—is refuted by "unquestionable documentary proof" (CPL § 440.30[4][c]). Specifically, the People have provided a copy of the Pre-Sentence Investigation Report ("the Report") that had been completed on June 17, 2010, in anticipation of defendant's sentencing (see People's Ex B). Defendant has provided no evidence—nor does the available record suggest— that the sentencing court did not review the Report prior to imposing sentence. Moreover, the very existence of the Report contradicts the sole allegation of fact in defendant's papers and demonstrates that there is no reasonable possibility that defendant was sentenced without one. Defendant's claim is especially unreliable given that he refused to appear for sentence and has not provided the minutes of the sentencing proceeding. Thus, where an essential allegation of fact is contradicted by unquestionable documentary proof and there is no reasonable possibility his allegation is true, defendant's motion is denied pursuant to CPL § 440.30[4][c] and [4][d].

For the same reason, the motion fails on the merits. Plainly, there is no merit to his claim that a pre-sentence report did not exist at the time he was sentenced, given that the People have provided it as an exhibit to their opposition. To the extent there is any claim that the Report is infirm, or the court erred in sentencing defendant because he had not been interviewed by the Department of Probation, such claim is also without merit.

The First Department has found inadequate pre-sentence reports that lack information about a defendant's history of trauma, mental health, and substance abuse issues, and fail to include a victim impact statement or interview of the defendant (see People v Pizzaro, 238 AD3d 571, 572-73 [1st Dept 2025]["Because there was no presentence interview, the presentence report in this case was seriously deficient. The report was devoid of information regarding defendant's education, employment history, health status, and mental health, each a statutorily prescribed category"]; People v Camacho, 237 AD3d 504, 505-06 [1st Dept 2025].

In this case, however, although defendant had not been interviewed by the Department of Probation — for whatever reason — prior to sentencing, the nine page Report contains a full and complete review of the facts of the present offense (including the crime itself and the investigation), defendant's legal history (both in and out of state), a victim impact statement made by the deceased's sister, a detailed analysis which included information obtained from a June 10, 2010 interview of defendant during a mental health evaluation in which he denied his guilt and use of illegal substances (though the report notes that he has a history of heroin addiction), a mental health diagnosis, and information relating to his family and environment, residence, education, income source, physical health, substance and mental health history, and an evaluative summary (see Opposition, Exhibit B). The fact that defendant had been interviewed for the mental health evaluation one week before the completion of the Report, and that information was included in the Report, alone should satisfy the interview requirement, especially since during that interview he spoke about the instant offense and substance use. The Report in this case stands in stark contrast to the bare reports referenced in Pizzaro and Camacho; indeed, all of the missing information in those cases is found in the Report here.

In light of the above, defendant's motion is denied in its entirety.

This constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.

Dated:

New York, New York

J.S.C.

FOOTNOTES

1.   One of the challenges was a pro se September 7, 2010 CPL § 440.10 motion in which he claimed: (1) the court was biased and vindictive; (2) the trial was unfair; (3) the court forced him to represent himself; (4) media coverage influenced the verdict; (5) the Sandoval ruling was wrong; (6) the court improperly sentenced him in his absence.

Ellen N. Biben, J.