People v. Hanyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Hanyo

103 A.D.3d 814, 959 N.Y.S.2d 450

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

DecidedFebruary 20, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 103 A.D.3d 814 (People v. Hanyo) 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. Hanyo, 103 A.D.3d 814, 959 N.Y.S.2d 450 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), rendered February 23, 2010, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty because the County Court imposed a three-year period of postrelease supervision, pursuant to the plea agreement, rather than the authorized period of five years (see Penal Law § 70.45). Although, as the People correctly concede, the sentence was illegal, the defendant is not adversely affected by the illegality of the sentence. Accordingly, his claim is without merit (cf. People v Andrews, 29 AD3d 599 [2006]; People v Gray, 181 AD2d 831 [1992]; CPL 470.15 [1]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hinds-Radix, 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, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), rendered February 23, 2010, convicting him of attempted burglary in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he should be permitted to withdraw his plea of guilty because the County Court imposed a three-year period of postrelease supervision, pursuant to the plea agreement, rather than the authorized period of five years (see Penal Law § 70.45). Although, as the People correctly concede, the sentence was illegal, the defendant is not adversely affected by the illegality of the sentence. Accordingly, his claim is without merit (cf. People v Andrews, 29 AD3d 599 [2006]; People v Gray, 181 AD2d 831 [1992]; CPL 470.15 [1]). Dillon, J.P., Angiolillo, Dickerson and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

103 A.D.3d 814, 959 N.Y.S.2d 450, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hanyo-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack