People v. Rivera

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rivera

36 A.D.3d 563, 827 N.Y.S.2d 659

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

DecidedJanuary 30, 2007

StatusPublished

This text of 36 A.D.3d 563 (People v. Rivera) 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. Rivera, 36 A.D.3d 563, 827 N.Y.S.2d 659 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J.), rendered August 20, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The court mentioned postrelease supervision (PRS) during the plea proceeding, and it set forth the applicable mandatory five-year term of PRS in the worksheet that the court personally signed, as well as in the commitment sheet. Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the fact that the court did not mention PRS in its oral pronouncement of sentence is unpreserved (see People v Thomas, 35 AD3d 192 [2006]), and without merit (id.; see also People v Lingle, 34 AD3d 287 [2006]; People v Sparber, 34 AD3d 265 [2006]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Micki A. Scherer, J.), rendered August 20, 2003, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a second violent felony offender, to a term of six years, unanimously affirmed.

The court mentioned postrelease supervision (PRS) during the plea proceeding, and it set forth the applicable mandatory five-year term of PRS in the worksheet that the court personally signed, as well as in the commitment sheet. Defendant’s constitutional challenge to the fact that the court did not mention PRS in its oral pronouncement of sentence is unpreserved (see People v Thomas, 35 AD3d 192 [2006]), and without merit (id.; see also People v Lingle, 34 AD3d 287 [2006]; People v Sparber, 34 AD3d 265 [2006]).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur— Saxe, J.E, Marlow, Sullivan, Nardelli and Gonzalez, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 A.D.3d 563, 827 N.Y.S.2d 659, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rivera-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack