PEOPLE v. RAMOS

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.

PEOPLE of the State of New York, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Ricardo J. RAMOS, Defendant-Appellant.

Decided: April 28, 2006

PRESENT:  PIGOTT, JR., P.J., SCUDDER, KEHOE, SMITH, AND PINE, JJ. D.J. & J.A. Cirando, Esqs., Syracuse (John A. Cirando of Counsel), for Defendant-Appellant. Edward M. Sharkey, District Attorney, Little Valley (Kelly Balcom of Counsel), for Plaintiff-Respondent.

Defendant appeals from a judgment revoking the sentence of probation imposed upon his conviction of sexual misconduct (Penal Law § 130.20) and sentencing him to a one-year determinate term of incarceration.   The People met their burden of establishing by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant violated the terms and conditions of his probation.   One of those conditions was that defendant participate in sex offender treatment.   Defendant stipulated that he was deemed unsuitable for sex offender treatment because he denied that he had sex with the victim (see generally People v. Pettway, 286 A.D.2d 865, 730 N.Y.S.2d 597, lv. denied 97 N.Y.2d 686, 738 N.Y.S.2d 302, 764 N.E.2d 406).   Contrary to the contention of defendant, an updated presentence report was not required inasmuch as there were no changes in his status since the sentence of probation was imposed (see People v. Stevens, 309 A.D.2d 1192, 765 N.Y.S.2d 121, lv. denied 1 N.Y.3d 541, 775 N.Y.S.2d 246, 807 N.E.2d 296).   Finally, defendant received effective assistance of counsel (see generally People v. Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137, 147, 444 N.Y.S.2d 893, 429 N.E.2d 400), and the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

MEMORANDUM: