People v. Moncrieffe

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Moncrieffe

2016 NY Slip Op 7595, 144 A.D.3d 496, 40 N.Y.S.3d 761

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided November 15, 2016·No. 2197 3008/12·Published

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J.), rendered December 11, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of promoting prostitution in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three to nine years, unanimously affirmed.

Although we do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Santiago, 119 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 964 [2014]), we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Defendant claims that the court erroneously promised to recommend shock incarceration (Penal Law § 60.04 [7]), where defendant was ineligible for that program. However, defendant does not seek to vacate his plea as induced by an invalid promise, but only seeks a sentence reduction, and we decline to grant that remedy. In any event, the court repeatedly emphasized to defendant that it would only recommend shock incarceration, but that it was up to the Department of Correction to decide whether to accept that recommendation.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Troy K. Webber, J.), rendered December 11, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of promoting prostitution in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of three to nine years, unanimously affirmed.

Although we do not find that defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Santiago, 119 AD3d 484 [1st Dept 2014], lv denied 24 NY3d 964 [2014]), we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Defendant claims that the court erroneously promised to recommend shock incarceration (Penal Law § 60.04 [7]), where defendant was ineligible for that program. However, defendant does not seek to vacate his plea as induced by an invalid promise, but only seeks a sentence reduction, and we decline to grant that remedy. In any event, the court repeatedly emphasized to defendant that it would only recommend shock incarceration, but that it was up to the Department of Correction to decide whether to accept that recommendation.

Concur—Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, Saxe, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

People v. Moncrieffe, 2016 NY Slip Op 7595, 144 A.D.3d 496, 40 N.Y.S.3d 761 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

2016 NY Slip Op 7595 (People v. Moncrieffe) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related