People v. Hoti

New York Court of Appeals

People v. Hoti

906 N.E.2d 373, 12 N.Y.3d 742

New York Court of Appeals·Decided February 19, 2009·Published·Cited by 40 cases

Opinion

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed. The mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee and DNA databank fee are not components of a defendant’s sentence (see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45 [2009] [decided today]). Accordingly, the court’s failure to pronounce the surcharge and fees prior to the entry of defendant’s plea did not deprive the defendant of the opportunity to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action (cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]).

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.

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

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order affirmed. The mandatory surcharge, crime victim assistance fee and DNA databank fee are not components of a defendant’s sentence (see People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45 [2009] [decided today]). Accordingly, the court’s failure to pronounce the surcharge and fees prior to the entry of defendant’s plea did not deprive the defendant of the opportunity to knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently choose among alternative courses of action (cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]).

Concur: Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones. Taking no part: Chief Judge Lippman.

People v. Hoti, 906 N.E.2d 373, 12 N.Y.3d 742 (N.Y. 2009).

Pincite

906 N.E.2d 373 (People v. Hoti) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related