People v. Wright, 29 N.Y.2d 408 (1972)
When imposing a sentence of more than 90 days for a misdemeanor, a judge must conduct a presentence investigation and obtain a written report on the defendant’s background and mental condition, even in the absence of a prior criminal record or psychiatric examination.
Summary
The defendant was convicted of endangering the welfare of a child and sentenced to one year in prison. The Court of Appeals held that the sentencing judge erred by imposing the maximum sentence without first conducting a presentence investigation into the defendant’s background and mental condition. The court reasoned that, even under the former Code of Criminal Procedure, a judge had a duty to obtain a probation report when imposing a sentence exceeding three months, particularly in a case involving a sensitive charge such as endangering a child’s welfare. The case was remanded for resentencing after an adequate investigation and report.
Facts
The defendant, a former university student with no prior criminal record, was convicted of endangering the welfare of a 15-year-old boy. The offense involved inducing the boy to go to a dormitory room under the pretense of a “modeling” job and making sexual advances. Although the sexual advances were not corroborated, the defendant’s offer of employment and his departure with the complainant were independently established. The sentencing judge immediately imposed a one-year prison sentence, the maximum for the offense, without any presentence investigation or information about the defendant’s background.
Procedural History
The defendant was convicted in the City Court of Syracuse by a judge without a jury. He appealed the conviction and sentence. The appellate court modified the order by reversing the sentence and remanding the case for resentencing after an adequate presentence investigation and report. The conviction itself was affirmed.
Issue(s)
Whether a sentencing judge is required to conduct a presentence investigation and obtain a written report on the defendant’s background and mental condition before imposing a sentence of more than 90 days for a misdemeanor, even in the absence of a prior criminal record or psychiatric examination.
Holding
Yes, because the sentencing judge had a duty to obtain a probation report showing an investigation of the social history of the case when the sentence was to be in excess of three months, particularly in a case involving a charge such as endangering a child’s welfare.
Court’s Reasoning
The court reasoned that the statutory provisions in effect at the time of sentencing (former Code Crim. Pro., §§ 552, 931, 943) implied a duty on the judge to have a probation report when the sentence exceeded three months. Section 943 required “the fullest information available” as to the defendant’s previous criminal record and social history in cases of felony or offenses specified in section 552, which included endangering the welfare of a child. The court emphasized that the nature of the offense itself should have alerted the judge to the need for a thorough investigation before sentencing. The court distinguished this case from those with “thin proof” due to independent evidence corroborating key aspects of the complainant’s testimony, such as the defendant’s job offer and their joint departure. Furthermore, the court cited the practice commentary on CPL 390.20, which stated that the new statute was intended to “strengthen the policy reflected in former Code sections 931 and 943” by explicitly prohibiting sentencing without a presentence report in certain circumstances, including sentences for misdemeanors exceeding 90 days. Ultimately, the Court of Appeals emphasized the importance of a careful and guarded approach to proof in cases involving charges like this and the necessity of gathering relevant information before imposing a sentence.