People v. Yearwood

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Yearwood

46 A.D.3d 586, 846 N.Y.S.2d 619

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

DecidedDecember 4, 2007

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 46 A.D.3d 586 (People v. Yearwood) 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. Yearwood, 46 A.D.3d 586, 846 N.Y.S.2d 619 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2007).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), rendered June 1, 2005, convicting him of rape in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty should be vacated on the ground that it was unknowing and involuntary because the Supreme Court failed to advise him that even if he was convicted after trial of all counts in the indictment and received consecutive sentences, the aggregate maximum term of the consecutive sentences was capped by operation of law at 20 years (see Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [e]). However, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant did not seek to withdraw his plea before sentencing pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3) (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People v Griffin, 250 AD2d 862 [1998]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit since he had decided to plead guilty prior to the court’s discussion of possible consecutive sentences after trial, such that there is “no reasonable possibility” that the court’s failure to mention Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (e) contributed to the defendant’s decision to accept the favorable plea offer (see People v Zackery, 251 AD2d 212, 213 [1998]). Goldstein, J.P., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Rienzi, J.), rendered June 1, 2005, convicting him of rape in the second degree (two counts), upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty should be vacated on the ground that it was unknowing and involuntary because the Supreme Court failed to advise him that even if he was convicted after trial of all counts in the indictment and received consecutive sentences, the aggregate maximum term of the consecutive sentences was capped by operation of law at 20 years (see Penal Law § 70.30 [1] [e]). However, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review as the defendant did not seek to withdraw his plea before sentencing pursuant to CPL 220.60 (3) (see People v Toxey, 86 NY2d 725, 726 [1995]; People v Griffin, 250 AD2d 862 [1998]). In any event, the defendant’s contention is without merit since he had decided to plead guilty prior to the court’s discussion of possible consecutive sentences after trial, such that there is “no reasonable possibility” that the court’s failure to mention Penal Law § 70.30 (1) (e) contributed to the defendant’s decision to accept the favorable plea offer (see People v Zackery, 251 AD2d 212, 213 [1998]). Goldstein, J.P., Fisher, Garni and McCarthy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

46 A.D.3d 586, 846 N.Y.S.2d 619, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-yearwood-nyappdiv-2007.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack