People v. Garcia

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Garcia

700 N.E.2d 311, 92 N.Y.2d 869, 677 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 1836

CourtNew York Court of Appeals

DecidedJuly 9, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by92 cases

This text of 700 N.E.2d 311 (People v. Garcia) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Court of Appeals primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

People v. Garcia, 700 N.E.2d 311, 92 N.Y.2d 869, 677 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 1836 (N.Y. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

On appeal, defendant contends that since he was misinformed about the maximum sentence to which he was exposed, his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Whether a plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary is dependent upon a number of factors “including the nature and terms of the agreement, the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused” (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736). That the defendant allegedly received inaccurate information regarding his possible sentence exposure is another factor which must be considered by the court, but it is not, in and of itself, dispositive.

The record demonstrates that the length of the sentence was but one of many elements considered by the defendant before *871 the plea was accepted. It is also true, on the facts presented here, that the defendant, arguably, could have received a consecutive sentence as his attorney advised him. Thus, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that defendant’s plea of guilty was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

On appeal, defendant contends that since he was misinformed about the maximum sentence to which he was exposed, his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Whether a plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary is dependent upon a number of factors “including the nature and terms of the agreement, the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused” (People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 736). That the defendant allegedly received inaccurate information regarding his possible sentence exposure is another factor which must be considered by the court, but it is not, in and of itself, dispositive.

The record demonstrates that the length of the sentence was but one of many elements considered by the defendant before *871 the plea was accepted. It is also true, on the facts presented here, that the defendant, arguably, could have received a consecutive sentence as his attorney advised him. Thus, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that defendant’s plea of guilty was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit.

Chief Judge Kaye and Judges Titone, Bellacosa, Smith, Levine, Ciparick and Wesley concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

700 N.E.2d 311, 92 N.Y.2d 869, 677 N.Y.S.2d 772, 1998 N.Y. LEXIS 1836, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-garcia-ny-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack