People v. Vanille

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Vanille

307 A.D.2d 778, 762 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7943

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

DecidedJuly 3, 2003

StatusPublished

This text of 307 A.D.2d 778 (People v. Vanille) 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. Vanille, 307 A.D.2d 778, 762 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7943 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of Orleans County Court (Noonan, J.), entered May 19, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, sexual abuse in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowingly entered because County Court failed to advise him at the time of the plea that [779]*779he would be subject to a mandatory period of postrelease supervision (see People v Dean, 302 AD2d 951 [2003]; People v Skye, 298 AD2d 889, 890 [2002]). 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 and therefore must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Kazmirski, 299 AD2d 826, 827 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 583 [2003]; Skye, 298 AD2d at 890). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of Orleans County Court (Noonan, J.), entered May 19, 2000, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of, inter alia, sexual abuse in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowingly entered because County Court failed to advise him at the time of the plea that [779]*779he would be subject to a mandatory period of postrelease supervision (see People v Dean, 302 AD2d 951 [2003]; People v Skye, 298 AD2d 889, 890 [2002]). 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 and therefore must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see People v Kazmirski, 299 AD2d 826, 827 [2002], lv denied 99 NY2d 583 [2003]; Skye, 298 AD2d at 890). Present — Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Lawton and Hayes, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

307 A.D.2d 778, 762 N.Y.S.2d 861, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 7943, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-vanille-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack