| People v Paulino |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 05012 [44 NY3d 1039] |
| September 18, 2025 |
| Court of Appeals |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| As corrected through Wednesday, February 4, 2026 |
| The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Randy Paulino, Appellant. |
Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered September 26, 2024. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (George R. Villegas, J.), which had convicted defendant, upon a plea of guilty, of attempted murder in the second degree.
People v Paulino, 233 AD3d 6, affirmed.
Crimes
- Sentence
- Harsh or Excessive Sentence
- Standard of Review
The Appellate Division applied the correct legal standard to defendant's claim on appeal that his sentence was unduly harsh and severe and should be reduced in the interest of justice when it reasoned that while it "unquestionably" has the authority to reduce a sentence in the interest of justice "even in the absence of a sentencing court's abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances," exercising that authority was unwarranted because defendant's sentence "is neither unduly harsh nor excessive."
Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York City (Graham Ball of counsel), for appellant.
Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Rafael Curbelo of counsel), for respondent.
Memorandum.
The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.
Defendant was convicted of attempted murder in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00; 125.25 [1]). His sole contention on appeal to the Appellate Division was that his sentence is unduly harsh and severe and should be reduced in the interest{**44 NY3d at 1040} of justice. The Appellate Division, over a two-Justice dissent, affirmed (233 AD3d 6 [1st Dept 2024]). It reasoned that while it "unquestionably" has the authority to reduce a sentence in the interest of justice "even in the absence of a sentencing court's abuse of discretion or extraordinary circumstances," exercising that authority was unwarranted because defendant's sentence "is neither unduly harsh nor excessive" (id. at 8-9). The Appellate Division therefore applied the correct legal standard to defendant's claim, and its responses to the dissent do not suggest otherwise (see People v Brisman, 43 NY3d 322, 324 [2025]). We have no basis to further review the Appellate Division's determination (see id. at 324-325).
Chief Judge Wilson and Judges Rivera, Garcia, Singas, Cannataro, Troutman and Halligan concur.
On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR), order affirmed, in a memorandum.
[*2]