People v. Cise

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Cise

306 A.D.2d 915, 761 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6811

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 13, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 306 A.D.2d 915 (People v. Cise) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Cise, 306 A.D.2d 915, 761 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6811 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Steuben County Court (Bradstreet, J.), entered March 11, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). Defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because County Court failed to advise him prior to entry of the plea that he would be subject to a period of postrelease supervision. Because defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground, he has not preserved his contention for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Perillo, 300 AD2d 1097 [2002]; People v Kazmirski, 299 AD2d 826 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 583 [2003]). Defendant’s motion to set aside the postrelease supervision component of the sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20 did not preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as the motion addressed only the validity of the sentence imposed (see People v Larweth, 303 AD2d 1029 [2003]). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s [916]*916contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15 [6] [a]). The further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel allegedly failed to advise him of the mandatory period of postrelease supervision “involves matters outside the record and therefore must be pursued by way of a CPL 440.10 motion” (Kazmirski, 299 AD2d at 827). Finally, defendant’s sentence is legal (see People v Crump, 302 AD2d 901 [2003]) and is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Steuben County Court (Bradstreet, J.), entered March 11, 2002, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). Defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered because County Court failed to advise him prior to entry of the plea that he would be subject to a period of postrelease supervision. Because defendant failed to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction on that ground, he has not preserved his contention for our review (see CPL 470.05 [2]; People v Perillo, 300 AD2d 1097 [2002]; People v Kazmirski, 299 AD2d 826 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 583 [2003]). Defendant’s motion to set aside the postrelease supervision component of the sentence pursuant to CPL 440.20 did not preserve that contention for our review inasmuch as the motion addressed only the validity of the sentence imposed (see People v Larweth, 303 AD2d 1029 [2003]). We decline to exercise our power to review defendant’s [916]*916contention as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see 470.15 [6] [a]). The further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because defense counsel allegedly failed to advise him of the mandatory period of postrelease supervision “involves matters outside the record and therefore must be pursued by way of a CPL 440.10 motion” (Kazmirski, 299 AD2d at 827). Finally, defendant’s sentence is legal (see People v Crump, 302 AD2d 901 [2003]) and is neither unduly harsh nor severe. Present — Pine, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder, Kehoe and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

306 A.D.2d 915, 761 N.Y.S.2d 912, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6811, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cise-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack