Background
The defendant appealed from a judgment of Supreme Court, Monroe County (Charles A. Schiano, Jr., J.) convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. On appeal, the defendant raised challenges to the conviction and also sought redaction of his presentence report, arguing that it contained information that should not have been included.
The Court’s Holding
The Fourth Department unanimously affirmed the judgment and directed Supreme Court, Monroe County, to redact all copies of the defendant’s presentence report in accordance with the court’s memorandum. While the court upheld the conviction and plea, it found that the presentence report contained information that was improperly included and ordered its removal.
The court’s direction to redact the presentence report reflects the principle that such reports should contain only information relevant to sentencing and should not include material that is prejudicial, inaccurate, or beyond the scope of what is necessary for the court to impose an appropriate sentence.
Key Takeaways
- Presentence reports are subject to judicial oversight, and courts may order redaction of improperly included information even after sentencing.
- Defendants may challenge the contents of presentence reports on appeal, and appellate courts have authority to direct redaction.
- The right to accurate presentence information is an important component of due process in criminal sentencing.
Why It Matters
This case is notable for the Fourth Department’s direction to redact the presentence report, which is a relatively uncommon remedy. For defense attorneys, the case provides authority for challenging the contents of presentence reports both at sentencing and on appeal.
The decision underscores the importance of carefully reviewing presentence reports and raising objections to inaccurate or improperly included information at the sentencing stage, as appellate courts will address such issues when properly preserved.