People v. Gkanios

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Gkanios

199 A.D.2d 280, 605 N.Y.S.2d 942

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

DecidedDecember 6, 1993

StatusPublished

This text of 199 A.D.2d 280 (People v. Gkanios) 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. Gkanios, 199 A.D.2d 280, 605 N.Y.S.2d 942 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), rendered June 22, 1992, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sodomy in the first degree, and sodomy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing three concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years imprisonment and restitution in an amount not to exceed $10,000.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provision in the sentence directing the defendant to make restitution in an amount not to exceed $10,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record supports a finding that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily [281]*281(see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Kade, 153 AD2d 907, 908). However, the People concede, and we agree, that the restitution provision should be vacated because the victim never incurred any out-of-pocket costs. The express purpose of the restitution provision was to defray the cost of any counseling expenses which the victim might incur in the future. Thereafter, the victim apparently failed to seek counseling. Accordingly, there is no need for restitution. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, 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 County Court, Westchester County (Silverman, J.), rendered June 22, 1992, convicting him of rape in the first degree, rape in the second degree, sodomy in the first degree, and sodomy in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing three concurrent terms of 2 to 6 years imprisonment and restitution in an amount not to exceed $10,000.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by deleting the provision in the sentence directing the defendant to make restitution in an amount not to exceed $10,000; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contentions, the record supports a finding that he entered his plea knowingly and voluntarily [281]*281(see, People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9). Accordingly, the court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in denying the defendant’s motion to withdraw his plea of guilty (see, People v Kade, 153 AD2d 907, 908). However, the People concede, and we agree, that the restitution provision should be vacated because the victim never incurred any out-of-pocket costs. The express purpose of the restitution provision was to defray the cost of any counseling expenses which the victim might incur in the future. Thereafter, the victim apparently failed to seek counseling. Accordingly, there is no need for restitution. Mangano, P. J., Rosenblatt, Lawrence, Copertino and Joy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

199 A.D.2d 280, 605 N.Y.S.2d 942, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-gkanios-nyappdiv-1993.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack