People v. Reyati

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Reyati

254 A.D.2d 199, 681 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11386

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

DecidedOctober 27, 1998

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 254 A.D.2d 199 (People v. Reyati) 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. Reyati, 254 A.D.2d 199, 681 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11386 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1998).

Pincite

Opinion

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), entered Decern[200]*200ber 8, 1997 and February 17, 1998, which denied defendant’s motions to vacate the judgment, same court (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered October 16, 1996, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of hindering prosecution in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years probation and a $1,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motions were properly denied. The court’s promise to allow defendant to “withdraw his plea” in the event of adverse immigration consequences was of necessity limited to the period prior to sentencing (CPL 220.60). Subsequent to sentencing, a plea may not be withdrawn, and a judgment of conviction may only be vacated upon a legal ground specified in CPL 440.10 (1). Since defendant bears the burden of placing on the record the exact nature of the promise (People v Woodward, 156 AD2d 225, 228, lv denied 75 NY2d 926), his failure to record, either during the plea or sentencing, the purported understanding that the promise was to survive the judgment defeats his present claim of involuntariness. Since the sentencing court adhered to the promises made at the plea, defendant is not entitled to have his conviction vacated (People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

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

Orders, Supreme Court, New York County (Carol Berkman, J.), entered Decern[200]*200ber 8, 1997 and February 17, 1998, which denied defendant’s motions to vacate the judgment, same court (Harold Rothwax, J.), rendered October 16, 1996, convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of hindering prosecution in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 5 years probation and a $1,000 fine, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s motions were properly denied. The court’s promise to allow defendant to “withdraw his plea” in the event of adverse immigration consequences was of necessity limited to the period prior to sentencing (CPL 220.60). Subsequent to sentencing, a plea may not be withdrawn, and a judgment of conviction may only be vacated upon a legal ground specified in CPL 440.10 (1). Since defendant bears the burden of placing on the record the exact nature of the promise (People v Woodward, 156 AD2d 225, 228, lv denied 75 NY2d 926), his failure to record, either during the plea or sentencing, the purported understanding that the promise was to survive the judgment defeats his present claim of involuntariness. Since the sentencing court adhered to the promises made at the plea, defendant is not entitled to have his conviction vacated (People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578). Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Andrias, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

254 A.D.2d 199, 681 N.Y.S.2d 231, 1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11386, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reyati-nyappdiv-1998.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack