People v. Reilly

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reilly

138 A.D.3d 603, 28 N.Y.S.3d 860

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

DecidedApril 26, 2016

Docket2868/11 766A 5805/11 766

StatusPublished

This text of 138 A.D.3d 603 (People v. Reilly) 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. Reilly, 138 A.D.3d 603, 28 N.Y.S.3d 860 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered April 2, 2014, as amended June 6, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of three counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to three consecutive terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentences on the two convictions under SCI 5805/11 to IV2 to 3 years, resulting in three consecutive sentences of IV2 to 3, IV2 to 3, and 2 to 4, for an aggregate term of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. At the time of the plea, the court clearly explained to defendant that if he violated the plea conditions he would receive consecutive sentences resulting in an aggregate term of 6 to 12 years. Defendant’s argument that this warning was ambiguous rests on a single word in the transcript. The record, including the context in which that word appeared and all surrounding circumstances, support the sentencing court’s finding that the transcript is incorrect in this regard. Even assuming that the court reporter accurately transcribed her original notes, the inference is inescapable that those notes *604 are incorrect because the reporter simply misheard a word in the court’s plea colloquy (see e.g. People v Valdes, 283 AD2d 187 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 688 [2001]). Defendant’s other challenges to his plea, alleging that its voluntariness was impaired by mental illness and drugs, are unsubstantiated and contradicted by the plea allocution record.

We find the sentences excessive to the extent indicated. This determination renders defendant’s remaining contention academic.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

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

Judgments, Supreme Court, New York County (Eduardo Padro, J.), rendered April 2, 2014, as amended June 6, 2014, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of three counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to three consecutive terms of 2 to 4 years, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of reducing the sentences on the two convictions under SCI 5805/11 to IV2 to 3 years, resulting in three consecutive sentences of IV2 to 3, IV2 to 3, and 2 to 4, for an aggregate term of 5 to 10 years, and otherwise affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s motion to withdraw his guilty plea. At the time of the plea, the court clearly explained to defendant that if he violated the plea conditions he would receive consecutive sentences resulting in an aggregate term of 6 to 12 years. Defendant’s argument that this warning was ambiguous rests on a single word in the transcript. The record, including the context in which that word appeared and all surrounding circumstances, support the sentencing court’s finding that the transcript is incorrect in this regard. Even assuming that the court reporter accurately transcribed her original notes, the inference is inescapable that those notes *604 are incorrect because the reporter simply misheard a word in the court’s plea colloquy (see e.g. People v Valdes, 283 AD2d 187 [1st Dept 2001], lv denied 97 NY2d 688 [2001]). Defendant’s other challenges to his plea, alleging that its voluntariness was impaired by mental illness and drugs, are unsubstantiated and contradicted by the plea allocution record.

We find the sentences excessive to the extent indicated. This determination renders defendant’s remaining contention academic.

Concur — Acosta, J.P., Renwick, Manzanet-Daniels, Kapnick and Webber, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

138 A.D.3d 603, 28 N.Y.S.3d 860, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reilly-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack