People v. Bolton

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Bolton

100 A.D.3d 1011, 954 N.Y.S.2d 466

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 28, 2012·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

[1012] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered May 11, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A plea of guilty will be upheld as valid if it was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]). Here, the defendant’s plea of guilty was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Contrary to his contention, the County Court properly apprised the defendant of the duration of post-release supervision he was agreeing to as part of the plea bargain (cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]).

The defendant’s remaining contention, that the County Court should have adjudicated him a youthful offender, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Stokes, 28 AD3d 592 [2006]), and, in any event, without merit (see People v McCoy, 35 AD3d 237 [2006]). Angiolillo, J.R, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

[1012] Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (DeRosa, J.), rendered May 11, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

A plea of guilty will be upheld as valid if it was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently (see People v Fiumefreddo, 82 NY2d 536, 543 [1993]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17 [1983]). Here, the defendant’s plea of guilty was entered into voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently. Contrary to his contention, the County Court properly apprised the defendant of the duration of post-release supervision he was agreeing to as part of the plea bargain (cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]).

The defendant’s remaining contention, that the County Court should have adjudicated him a youthful offender, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Stokes, 28 AD3d 592 [2006]), and, in any event, without merit (see People v McCoy, 35 AD3d 237 [2006]). Angiolillo, J.R, Balkin, Austin and Miller, JJ., concur.

People v. Bolton, 100 A.D.3d 1011, 954 N.Y.S.2d 466 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

100 A.D.3d 1011 (People v. Bolton) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related