| People v Williamson |
| 2010 NY Slip Op 03182 [72 AD3d 1339] |
| April 22, 2010 |
| Appellate Division, Third Department |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v SteveWilliamson, Appellant. |
—[*1]
Mercure, J. Appeal, by permission, from an order of the County Court of Rensselaer County(McGrath, J.), rendered June 25, 2008, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.20to set aside the sentence, without a hearing.
Following the brutal stabbing death of his sister-in-law and the assault of her three-year-olddaughter, defendant was charged by indictment with murder in the first degree, murder in thesecond degree, assault in the second degree (two counts) and endangering the welfare of a child.Subsequently, defendant pleaded guilty to murder in the first degree in full satisfaction of allcharges and was sentenced to life in prison without parole. Defendant's conviction was upheld bythis Court on appeal (People v Williamson, 301 AD2d 860 [2003], lv denied 100NY2d 567 [2003]). Thereafter, claiming that his presentence report contained inaccurateinformation (see Matter of Williamson v Fischer, 72 AD3d 1366 [2010] [decidedherewith]), defendant moved pursuant to CPL 440.20 to vacate his sentence or have thepresentence report corrected. County Court denied defendant's motion in its entirety and he nowappeals.
We affirm. At sentencing, County Court clearly stated that it was not taking intoconsideration any of the statements challenged by defendant as being inaccurate and, inasmuchas defendant received the sentence for which he bargained, the statements clearly had no effectthereon (see People v Vaughan, 20AD3d 940, 941-942 [2005], lv denied 5 NY3d 857 [2005]; [*2]People v Campo, 308 AD2d 406, 407 [2003], lv denied1 NY3d 569 [2003]). As a result, defendant's motion was properly denied since the sentence wasnot " 'unauthorized, illegally imposed or otherwise invalid as a matter of law' " (People vCampo, 308 AD2d at 407, quoting CPL 440.20 [1]; see People v Vaughan, 20 AD3dat 942).
Defendant's remaining argument has been considered and found to be lacking in merit.
Cardona, P.J., Spain, Kavanagh and Garry, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed.