People v. Donofrio

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Donofrio

123 A.D.3d 941, 1 N.Y.S.3d 127

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

DecidedDecember 17, 2014

Docket2013-01600

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 123 A.D.3d 941 (People v. Donofrio) 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. Donofrio, 123 A.D.3d 941, 1 N.Y.S.3d 127 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary, J.), rendered January 9, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to concurrent determinate terms of 10 years of imprisonment on all counts, and a period of seven years of postrelease supervision with respect to each count.

*942 Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the period of postrelease supervision of seven years to five years with respect to each count; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The minutes of the defendant’s plea proceeding reveal that the court promised the defendant that it would impose a 10-year term of imprisonment for each of three counts of burglary in the second degree, with the sentences to be served concurrently to each other, plus a five-year period of postrelease supervision with respect to each count. However, at the sentencing hearing on January 9, 2013, although the court imposed the promised 10-year concurrent sentences, it imposed a period of seven years of postrelease supervision. As the People correctly concede, not only did this seven-year postrelease supervision period deviate from the earlier promise, it also exceeded the statutory maximum period of five years (see Penal Law § 70.45). Accordingly, the period of postrelease supervision with respect to each count must be reduced to the extent indicated herein (see People v Robinson, 74 AD3d 1103 [2010]; People v Serrano, 21 AD3d 970 [2005]).

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenge to the hearing court’s suppression determination (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831 [1999]; People v Persaud, 118 AD3d 820 [2014]) and of his claim that the agreed-upon sentence was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Arias, 100 AD3d 914, 915 [2012]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ, concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary, J.), rendered January 9, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to concurrent determinate terms of 10 years of imprisonment on all counts, and a period of seven years of postrelease supervision with respect to each count.

*942 Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the period of postrelease supervision of seven years to five years with respect to each count; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The minutes of the defendant’s plea proceeding reveal that the court promised the defendant that it would impose a 10-year term of imprisonment for each of three counts of burglary in the second degree, with the sentences to be served concurrently to each other, plus a five-year period of postrelease supervision with respect to each count. However, at the sentencing hearing on January 9, 2013, although the court imposed the promised 10-year concurrent sentences, it imposed a period of seven years of postrelease supervision. As the People correctly concede, not only did this seven-year postrelease supervision period deviate from the earlier promise, it also exceeded the statutory maximum period of five years (see Penal Law § 70.45). Accordingly, the period of postrelease supervision with respect to each count must be reduced to the extent indicated herein (see People v Robinson, 74 AD3d 1103 [2010]; People v Serrano, 21 AD3d 970 [2005]).

The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenge to the hearing court’s suppression determination (see People v Kemp, 94 NY2d 831 [1999]; People v Persaud, 118 AD3d 820 [2014]) and of his claim that the agreed-upon sentence was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273, 281 [1992]; People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Arias, 100 AD3d 914, 915 [2012]; People v Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819 [2011]).

Dillon, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Cohen, JJ, concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

123 A.D.3d 941, 1 N.Y.S.3d 127, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-donofrio-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack