People v. Munn

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Munn

105 A.D.3d 1456, 963 N.Y.S.2d 914

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

DecidedApril 26, 2013

StatusPublished

This text of 105 A.D.3d 1456 (People v. Munn) 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. Munn, 105 A.D.3d 1456, 963 N.Y.S.2d 914 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered June 21, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that Supreme Court fulfilled its duty of advising defendant that the promised sentence included a mandatory period of postrelease supervision (see generally People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]), and we therefore reject defendant’s further contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. The record establishes that “the plea represented] a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to defendant” (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403 [1995]; see People v Cornell, 16 NY3d 801, 802 [2011]).

Present—Scudder, PJ., Peradotto, Sconiers, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Penny M. Wolfgang, J.), rendered June 21, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, we conclude that Supreme Court fulfilled its duty of advising defendant that the promised sentence included a mandatory period of postrelease supervision (see generally People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]), and we therefore reject defendant’s further contention that his plea was not knowing and voluntary. The record establishes that “the plea represented] a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to defendant” (People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403 [1995]; see People v Cornell, 16 NY3d 801, 802 [2011]).

Present—Scudder, PJ., Peradotto, Sconiers, Valentino and Martoche, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

105 A.D.3d 1456, 963 N.Y.S.2d 914, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-munn-nyappdiv-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack