People v. Laster

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Laster

38 A.D.3d 242, 832 N.Y.S.2d 151

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

DecidedMarch 6, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 38 A.D.3d 242 (People v. Laster) 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. Laster, 38 A.D.3d 242, 832 N.Y.S.2d 151 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Erice, J.), rendered June 20, 2003, as amended March 12, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 1472 years and 2 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who was duly advised during the plea allocution [243]*243that his sentence would include postrelease supervision, did not preserve his present claim that the court misinformed him as to the precise consequences of a violation of a condition of such supervision (see People v Behlin, 33 AD3d 390 [2006]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it (see id.; People v Muriqi, 9 AD3d 743, 744 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). There is no merit to defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding this issue.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses his excessive sentence claim (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). The court did not conflate the right to appeal with the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty, but separately explained that the waiver of the right to appeal was in consideration for the plea. In any event, were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we would find no basis to reduce the sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Richard Lee Erice, J.), rendered June 20, 2003, as amended March 12, 2004, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of manslaughter in the first degree and assault in the second degree, and sentencing him to consecutive terms of 1472 years and 2 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant, who was duly advised during the plea allocution [243]*243that his sentence would include postrelease supervision, did not preserve his present claim that the court misinformed him as to the precise consequences of a violation of a condition of such supervision (see People v Behlin, 33 AD3d 390 [2006]), and we decline to review it in the interest of justice. Were we to review this claim, we would reject it (see id.; People v Muriqi, 9 AD3d 743, 744 [2004], lv denied 3 NY3d 679 [2004]). There is no merit to defendant’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim regarding this issue.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, which forecloses his excessive sentence claim (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248 [2006]). The court did not conflate the right to appeal with the rights automatically forfeited by pleading guilty, but separately explained that the waiver of the right to appeal was in consideration for the plea. In any event, were we to find that defendant did not make a valid waiver of his right to appeal, we would find no basis to reduce the sentence. Concur—Andrias, J.E, Friedman, Marlow, Nardelli and Catterson, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

38 A.D.3d 242, 832 N.Y.S.2d 151, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-laster-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack