People v. Skye

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Skye

298 A.D.2d 889, 747 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9093

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

DecidedOctober 1, 2002

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 298 A.D.2d 889 (People v. Skye) 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. Skye, 298 A.D.2d 889, 747 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9093 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

—Appeal from a judgment of Cattaraugus County Court (Himelein, J.), entered January 29, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree.

[890]*890It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). He was sentenced as a second felony offender to a determinate term of incarceration of seven years, to which is added a period of postrelease supervision pursuant to Penal Law § 70.45. Defendant contends that his plea is invalid because County Court failed to advise him at the time of the plea that he would be subject to a mandatory period of postrelease supervision. That contention is not preserved for our review (see People v White, 296 AD2d 867; People v Shumway, 295 AD2d 916; People v Minter, 295 AD2d 927; People v Roddy, 295 AD2d 965). The further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s alleged failure to advise him of the mandatory period of postrelease supervision involves matters outside the record on appeal and therefore must be pursued by way of a CPL 440.10 motion (see People v Booker, 280 AD2d 785, 786, lv denied 96 NY2d 916; see also People v Robertson, 286 AD2d 863, lv denied 97 NY2d 760; People v Snitzel, 270 AD2d 836, 836-837, lv denied 95 NY2d 804). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, he is properly subject to five years of postrelease supervision based on his status as a second felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2]; People v Robinson, 297 AD2d 827; cf. People v Goss, 286 AD2d 180, 183). The challenge of defendant to the severity of the sentence does not survive his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737) and in any event is without merit. Present— Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

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

—Appeal from a judgment of Cattaraugus County Court (Himelein, J.), entered January 29, 2001, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree.

[890]*890It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.25 [2]). He was sentenced as a second felony offender to a determinate term of incarceration of seven years, to which is added a period of postrelease supervision pursuant to Penal Law § 70.45. Defendant contends that his plea is invalid because County Court failed to advise him at the time of the plea that he would be subject to a mandatory period of postrelease supervision. That contention is not preserved for our review (see People v White, 296 AD2d 867; People v Shumway, 295 AD2d 916; People v Minter, 295 AD2d 927; People v Roddy, 295 AD2d 965). The further contention of defendant that he was denied effective assistance of counsel based on defense counsel’s alleged failure to advise him of the mandatory period of postrelease supervision involves matters outside the record on appeal and therefore must be pursued by way of a CPL 440.10 motion (see People v Booker, 280 AD2d 785, 786, lv denied 96 NY2d 916; see also People v Robertson, 286 AD2d 863, lv denied 97 NY2d 760; People v Snitzel, 270 AD2d 836, 836-837, lv denied 95 NY2d 804). Contrary to the further contention of defendant, he is properly subject to five years of postrelease supervision based on his status as a second felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.45 [2]; People v Robinson, 297 AD2d 827; cf. People v Goss, 286 AD2d 180, 183). The challenge of defendant to the severity of the sentence does not survive his waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737) and in any event is without merit. Present— Wisner, J.P., Hurlbutt, Scudder and Kehoe, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

298 A.D.2d 889, 747 N.Y.S.2d 837, 2002 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 9093, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-skye-nyappdiv-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack