People v. Toney

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Toney

116 A.D.3d 607, 983 N.Y.S.2d 797

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

DecidedApril 22, 2014

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 116 A.D.3d 607 (People v. Toney) 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. Toney, 116 A.D.3d 607, 983 N.Y.S.2d 797 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered May 26, 2011, resentencing defendant, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 13 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his underlying 2001 plea may not be raised on this appeal from a judgment of resentence (see People v Jordan, 16 NY3d 845 [2011]; see also CPL 450.30 [3]). Although defendant asserts that he is challenging the resentencing itself as violating due process, that claim is without merit (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621 [2011]). Essentially, defendant is only challenging his 2001 plea of guilty, asserting that the court’s explanation of the promised sentence was defective under People v Catu (4 NY3d 242 [2005]). In any event, the only remedy sought by defendant is the removal of postrelease supervision from his sentence, which he characterizes as specific performance of his original plea bargain. However, a Catu violation would not entitle defendant to specific performance (see People v Jones, 101 AD3d 440 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1100 [2013]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Renwick, Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

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

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County (Charles H. Solomon, J.), rendered May 26, 2011, resentencing defendant, as a second violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 13 years, with five years’ postrelease supervision, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his underlying 2001 plea may not be raised on this appeal from a judgment of resentence (see People v Jordan, 16 NY3d 845 [2011]; see also CPL 450.30 [3]). Although defendant asserts that he is challenging the resentencing itself as violating due process, that claim is without merit (see People v Lingle, 16 NY3d 621 [2011]). Essentially, defendant is only challenging his 2001 plea of guilty, asserting that the court’s explanation of the promised sentence was defective under People v Catu (4 NY3d 242 [2005]). In any event, the only remedy sought by defendant is the removal of postrelease supervision from his sentence, which he characterizes as specific performance of his original plea bargain. However, a Catu violation would not entitle defendant to specific performance (see People v Jones, 101 AD3d 440 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1100 [2013]). Concur — Tom, J.E, Renwick, Richter, Feinman and Gische, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

116 A.D.3d 607, 983 N.Y.S.2d 797, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-toney-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack