People v. Claverie

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Claverie

138 A.D.3d 522, 28 N.Y.S.3d 317

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

DecidedApril 14, 2016

Docket827 399/13

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 522 (People v. Claverie) 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. Claverie, 138 A.D.3d 522, 28 N.Y.S.3d 317 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered May 28, 2013 convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree and sentencing him to a term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant received the precise sentence that had been promised by the court. Moreover, during the plea colloquy, defendant had acknowledged that no other promises had been made. Defendant’s misunderstanding of the number of additional days he *523 would have to serve after pleading guilty was based on alleged off-the-record discussions and does not warrant vacatur of the plea (see People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640, 642-643 [1984]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Renee A. White, J.), rendered May 28, 2013 convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the third degree and sentencing him to a term of nine months, unanimously affirmed.

The court providently exercised its discretion in denying defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. Defendant received the precise sentence that had been promised by the court. Moreover, during the plea colloquy, defendant had acknowledged that no other promises had been made. Defendant’s misunderstanding of the number of additional days he *523 would have to serve after pleading guilty was based on alleged off-the-record discussions and does not warrant vacatur of the plea (see People v Ramos, 63 NY2d 640, 642-643 [1984]).

Concur — Mazzarelli, J.P., Acosta, Moskowitz, Gische and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 522, 28 N.Y.S.3d 317, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-claverie-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack