People v. Washington

The "concession” by the People is based on an erroneous interpretation by this Court of CPL 390.20 (1). People v Selikoff (35 NY2d 227, 238) is not in point on the issue before us.

The defendant having at all pertinent times been incarcerated, there is no need for a further presentence report.

As I stated in my dissent in People v Laster (140 AD2d 233, 234):

"Once again, an unjustified burden is placed on the criminal justice system.

"The defendant has been continually incarcerated, and therefore any presentence report could only cover his time in prison. Accordingly, People v Saez (121 AD2d 947,…