Case ID: ad2d_262/html/0986-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Frank Madera, Appellant.
    [692 NYS2d 625]
   —Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: According the determination of the trial court the great weight to which it is entitled (see, People v Prochilo, 41 NY2d 759, 761; People v Hill, 175 AD2d 603), we conclude that County Court properly determined that defendant’s confession was knowingly and voluntarily made (see, People v Williams, 62 NY2d 285, 289-290). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court’s Sandoval ruling constituted an abuse of discretion (see, People v Suber, 256 AD2d 1086; People v Richiez, 173 AD2d 234, 235, lv denied 78 NY2d 925). In any event, that contention lacks merit (see, People v Sandoval, 34 NY2d 371, 375; see also, People v Mattiace, 77 NY2d 269, 275-276; People v Pavao, 59 NY2d 282, 292). The record does not support defendant’s contention that, in violation of defendant’s due process rights, the court impermissibly considered uncharged conduct in sentencing defendant (see, People v Storelli, 216 AD2d 891, lv denied 86 NY2d 803; cf., People v Villanueva, 144 AD2d 285, lv denied 73 NY2d 897). Finally, the sentence is neither unduly harsh nor severe. (Appeal from Judgment of Oneida County Court, Donalty, J. — Burglary, 2nd Degree.) Present — Green, J. P., Pine, Wisner, Hurlbutt and Balio, JJ.