People v. Wallace

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Wallace

5 A.D.3d 122, 771 N.Y.S.2d 894

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

DecidedMarch 2, 2004

StatusPublished

This text of 5 A.D.3d 122 (People v. Wallace) 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. Wallace, 5 A.D.3d 122, 771 N.Y.S.2d 894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2004).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment of resentence, Supreme Court, New York County [123]*123(Micki Scherer, J.), rendered May 3, 2000, resentencing defendant on remand, upon his prior plea of guilty to two counts of burglary in the third degree, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 2½ to 5 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 11, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion brought pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea was voluntary, and he received effective assistance of counsel. The record supports the motion court’s detailed findings, in which it concluded that, under the totality of circumstances, the incorrect information counsel provided to defendant, at an early stage of the proceedings, concerning the theoretical outer limit of his sentencing exposure had no effect on his ultimate decision to plead guilty (see People v Garcia, 92 NY2d 869 [1998]; see also Hill v Lockhart, 474 US 52, 59-60).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, 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 [123]*123(Micki Scherer, J.), rendered May 3, 2000, resentencing defendant on remand, upon his prior plea of guilty to two counts of burglary in the third degree, as a second felony offender, to consecutive terms of 2½ to 5 years, and order, same court and Justice, entered on or about April 11, 2003, which denied defendant’s motion brought pursuant to CPL 440.10 to vacate the judgment, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant’s guilty plea was voluntary, and he received effective assistance of counsel. The record supports the motion court’s detailed findings, in which it concluded that, under the totality of circumstances, the incorrect information counsel provided to defendant, at an early stage of the proceedings, concerning the theoretical outer limit of his sentencing exposure had no effect on his ultimate decision to plead guilty (see People v Garcia, 92 NY2d 869 [1998]; see also Hill v Lockhart, 474 US 52, 59-60).

We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence. Concur—Tom, J.P., Andrias, Sullivan and Friedman, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

5 A.D.3d 122, 771 N.Y.S.2d 894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-wallace-nyappdiv-2004.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack