People v. Rivas

2025 NY Slip Op 00488
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 30, 2025
DocketInd No. 2587/19 Appeal No. 3588 Case No. 2021-04567
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 00488 (People v. Rivas) 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. Rivas, 2025 NY Slip Op 00488 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

People v Rivas (2025 NY Slip Op 00488)
People v Rivas
2025 NY Slip Op 00488
Decided on January 30, 2025
Appellate Division, First Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered: January 30, 2025
Before: Kern, J.P., Singh, Kennedy, Rodriguez, Michael, JJ.

Ind No. 2587/19 Appeal No. 3588 Case No. 2021-04567

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Luis Rivas, Defendant-Appellant.


Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Sarah E. Siegel of counsel), for appellant.

Alvin L. Bragg, Jr., District Attorney, New York (Nathan Morgante of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Diane Kiesel, J.), rendered November 16, 2021, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a jail term of 364 days, unanimously modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, to the extent of vacating the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing, and otherwise affirmed.

Given the absence of warnings under Boykin v Alabama (395 US 238 [1969]) or any other basis for finding voluntariness, defendant would be entitled to have his plea vacated. However, he does not request that relief, but instead seeks dismissal of the indictment, and he expressly asks this Court to affirm the judgment if it does not grant that remedy. Because, under all the circumstances, we do not find dismissal to be appropriate, we affirm, except to the extent indicated (see e.g. People v Teron, 139 AD3d 450 [1st Dept 2016]).

Based on our own interest of justice powers, we vacate the surcharge and fees imposed at sentencing (see People v Chirinos, 190 AD3d 434 [1st Dept 2021]). We note that the People do not oppose this relief.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: January 30, 2025



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

Related

Boykin v. Alabama
395 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 1969)
People v. Teron
139 A.D.3d 450 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 00488, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rivas-nyappdiv-2025.