People v. Forney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Forney

17 A.D.3d 481, 792 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3779

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

DecidedApril 11, 2005

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 17 A.D.3d 481 (People v. Forney) 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. Forney, 17 A.D.3d 481, 792 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3779 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered August 7, 2003, convicting him of attempted sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, prior to entering a plea of guilty, he was adequately apprised of the conditions of postrelease supervision (see People v Wronka, 6 AD3d 735 [2004]; People v Cruz, 305 AD2d 424 [2003]; cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. The plea minutes indicate that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty (see People v Johnson, 288 AD2d 491 [2001]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Mastro, 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, Kings County (Chambers, J.), rendered August 7, 2003, convicting him of attempted sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, prior to entering a plea of guilty, he was adequately apprised of the conditions of postrelease supervision (see People v Wronka, 6 AD3d 735 [2004]; People v Cruz, 305 AD2d 424 [2003]; cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242 [2005]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying his motion to withdraw his plea. The plea minutes indicate that the defendant knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered his plea of guilty (see People v Johnson, 288 AD2d 491 [2001]). Florio, J.P., S. Miller, Luciano and Mastro, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

17 A.D.3d 481, 792 N.Y.S.2d 335, 2005 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3779, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-forney-nyappdiv-2005.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack