People v. Guare

45 A.D.3d 697, 846 N.Y.S.2d 247
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 2007
StatusPublished
Cited by5 cases

This text of 45 A.D.3d 697 (People v. Guare) 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. Guare, 45 A.D.3d 697, 846 N.Y.S.2d 247 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Opinion

Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Firetog, J., at plea; D’Ernie, J., at sentencing), both rendered March 23, 2004, convicting him of criminal contempt in the first degree and criminal contempt in the second degree under indictment No. 2605/2002, and assault in the second degree under indictment No. 3387/2003, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.

Ordered that the judgments are affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was not valid (see People v Moyett, 7 NY3d 892, 893 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]) and, thus, does not preclude the defendant’s challenge to his sentence, upon his conviction for assault in the second degree, as excessive. However, that sentence was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

To the extent that the defendant contends that postrelease supervision should not be a part of his sentences, neither the sentencing minutes nor the order of commitment mentioned the imposition of any period of post-release supervision. Therefore, the sentences actually imposed by the court never included, and do not now include, any period of postrelease supervision (see Hill v United States ex rel. Wampler, 298 US 460 [1936]; People v Thompson, 39 AD3d 572, 573 [2007]; People v Benson, 38 AD3d 563, 564 [2007]; People v Smith, 37 AD3d 499 [2007]; Earley v Murray, 451 F3d 71 [2006], reh denied 462 F3d 147 [2006], cert denied sub nom. Bushlre v Earley, — US —, 127 S Ct 3014 [2007]; but see People v Sparber, 34 AD3d 265 [2006]).

The defendant’s remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit. Rivera, J.P., Skelos, Fisher and Angiolillo, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Lane
63 A.D.3d 858 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Henry
60 A.D.3d 1083 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Pelsey
60 A.D.3d 1088 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2009)
People v. Faulkner
55 A.D.3d 924 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2008)
People v. Stroman
18 Misc. 3d 617 (New York Supreme Court, 2007)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
45 A.D.3d 697, 846 N.Y.S.2d 247, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-guare-nyappdiv-2007.