People v. Henriquez

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Henriquez

131 A.D.3d 902, 16 N.Y.S.3d 726

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

DecidedSeptember 29, 2015

Docket15741 1581/09

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 902 (People v. Henriquez) 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. Henriquez, 131 A.D.3d 902, 16 N.Y.S.3d 726 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered April 20, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of four to eight years, held in abeyance, the motion by assigned counsel to be relieved denied without prejudice to renewal, and counsel directed to attempt to communicate with defendant forthwith concerning any issues that may be raised concerning defendant’s failure to be apprised that he might be deported as a consequence of his guilty plea to a felony and the possible consequences of pursuing an appeal raising such issues, and advising defendant that he has 60 days from the date of this order to file a pro se supplemental brief if he so chooses.

Counsel’s letter to defendant, with a copy of the brief filed with this Court, does not meet the requirements of People v Saunders (52 AD2d 833 [1976]). Counsel has not sufficiently established that defendant has been made aware of any potential issues under People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]), that he has made an informed decision not to raise any such issues, and that he has been informed that he has a right to raise such issues in a pro se brief if he so chooses.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

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

Appeal from judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles Solomon, J.), rendered April 20, 2010, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the second and third degrees, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to an aggregate term of four to eight years, held in abeyance, the motion by assigned counsel to be relieved denied without prejudice to renewal, and counsel directed to attempt to communicate with defendant forthwith concerning any issues that may be raised concerning defendant’s failure to be apprised that he might be deported as a consequence of his guilty plea to a felony and the possible consequences of pursuing an appeal raising such issues, and advising defendant that he has 60 days from the date of this order to file a pro se supplemental brief if he so chooses.

Counsel’s letter to defendant, with a copy of the brief filed with this Court, does not meet the requirements of People v Saunders (52 AD2d 833 [1976]). Counsel has not sufficiently established that defendant has been made aware of any potential issues under People v Peque (22 NY3d 168 [2013]), that he has made an informed decision not to raise any such issues, and that he has been informed that he has a right to raise such issues in a pro se brief if he so chooses.

Concur— Mazzarelli, J.P, Sweeny, Renwick and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

131 A.D.3d 902, 16 N.Y.S.3d 726, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-henriquez-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack