Opinion
November 8, 1990
Appeal from the County Court of Broome County (Monserrate, J.).
As the result of plea negotiations, defendant agreed to plead guilty to one count of a two-count indictment. Although defendant waived the preplea investigation and report, he refused to allow the investigating officer to interview him without his attorney being present. For this reason, the presentence report contained no information about defendant's family, social or personal history. County Court received defendant's presentence report before it accepted defendant's plea; two weeks thereafter the bargained-for indeterminate sentence of 5 to 15 years was imposed. Defendant maintains that because the presentence investigation and report did not comply with CPL 390.30 (1) and (3), his sentence was not legally prescribed. The procedural history, combined with defendant's failure to object at sentencing, however, convinces us that defendant waived any purported defect (see, People v. Morton, 142 A.D.2d 763, 764-765; People v. Dowdell, 72 A.D.2d 622, 623; but see, People v. Andujar, 110 A.D.2d 606, 607-608 ).
Moreover, defendant has made no showing, nor does the record reflect, that County Court relied on any prejudicial information to impose sentence (see, People v. Redman, 148 A.D.2d 966, 967, lv. denied 74 N.Y.2d 745). The report revealed defendant's prior arrest and conviction in Pennsylvania for a sexual misdemeanor just two weeks before the circumstances leading to the conviction underlying this appeal, and defendant received the agreed-upon sentence (see, People v. Dowdell, supra). Had defendant wished — although interestingly, even on appeal defense counsel offers no more than unbuttressed suggestions that "the information about [defendant's] family, social, and personal history might have led the judge to conclude that a lesser sentence was appropriate" — defendant had ample opportunity to inform the court of any potential mitigating factors (see, CPL 380.50, 390.40 Crim. Proc.; see generally, People v. Perry, 36 N.Y.2d 114, 119). Furthermore, the sentence imposed is not itself improper, excessive or harsh.
Judgment affirmed. Mahoney, P.J., Casey, Mikoll and Yesawich, Jr., JJ., concur; Levine, J. not taking part.