10 Cited authorities

People v. Louree
8 N.Y.3d 541 (N.Y. 2007) Cited 319 times 5 Legal Analyses
Reversing the Appellate Division for affirming the trial court's decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea despite the failure to mention PRS during the allocution
People v. Selikoff
35 N.Y.2d 227 (N.Y. 1974) Cited 526 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding court correctly refused to impose original terms of plea agreement after discovering defendant was actually a principal, not a pawn, in a fraudulent scheme, and holding that defendant's refusal to withdraw his plea did not entitle him to specific performance of original plea agreement
People v. Murray
2010 N.Y. Slip Op. 5600 (N.Y. 2010) Cited 131 times
In Murray, the Judge informed the defendant that he would “probably” receive youthful offender status and a nine-month sentence if he complied with certain plea conditions set by the court.
People v. Fuller
57 N.Y.2d 152 (N.Y. 1982) Cited 252 times
In People v. Fuller, 57 N.Y.2d 152, 455 N.Y.S.2d 253 (1982), the New York Court of Appeals applied a narrow exception to the preservation doctrine in a case where the trial court exceeded its statutory authority, thereby levying an unlawful sentence. Id. at 156-59, 455 N.Y.S.2d at 255-56; accord, e.g., People v. Samms, 95 N.Y.2d 52, 55-56, 710 N.Y.S.2d 310, 312-313 (2000) (failure to object at the time of sentencing did not render the challenge unpreserved, because the sentence was imposed in violation of a statutory mandate and therefore was unauthorized).
People v. Hicks
98 N.Y.2d 185 (N.Y. 2002) Cited 104 times
97 Decided July 1, 2002. APPEAL, by permission of an Associate Judge of the Court of Appeals, from an order of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, entered November 9, 2001, which modified, on the law, and, as modified, affirmed a judgment of the Monroe County Court (William H. Bristol, J.), convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of two county of rape in the first degree, and sentencing defendant 10 to 20 years. The modification consisted of vacating
People v. Figgins
87 N.Y.2d 840 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 91 times 1 Legal Analyses
Argued October 24, 1995 Decided November 30, 1995 Appeal from the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, Donald J. Mark, J. Howard K. Broder, Rochester, for appellant. Howard R. Relin, District Attorney of Monroe County, Rochester (Alan Cruikshank of counsel), for respondent. MEMORANDUM. The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed. Supreme Court promised defendant that it would sentence him to 2 1/2 to 5 years and temporarily release him on his own recognizance
People v. Avery
85 N.Y.2d 503 (N.Y. 1995) Cited 83 times
Noting a plea agreement conditioned on defendant's successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program "furthers important public policy goals."
People v. McAlpin
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8456 (N.Y. 2011) Cited 45 times
In McAlpin, the Court of Appeals determined that preservation was not required because the lower court did not inform the defendant that he would be subject to postrelease supervision until “moments before imposing the sentence” (id. at 938, 936 N.Y.S.2d 666, 960 N.E.2d 435).
People v. Pichardo
1 N.Y.3d 126 (N.Y. 2003) Cited 53 times
In Pichardo, the earlier sentence was much the longer of the two, so that the promise of concurrent sentencing meant that the second sentence, entered on the plea, carried no additional jail time.
People v. Jenkins
11 N.Y.3d 282 (N.Y. 2008) Cited 40 times
Argued September 11, 2008. Decided October 23, 2008. APPEAL, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the First Judicial Department, from an order of that Court, entered July 26, 2007. The Appellate Division affirmed a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County (John Cataldo, J., at plea; Arlene D. Goldberg, J., and Dora L. Irizarry, J., at proceedings; Michael R. Ambrecht, J., at sentence), which had (1) convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal

The People, Respondent,v.Karen M. Caza, Appellant.

10 Cited authorities

Reversing the Appellate Division for affirming the trial court's decision denying defendant's motion to withdraw his plea despite the failure to mention PRS during the allocution

Finding court correctly refused to impose original terms of plea agreement after discovering defendant was actually a principal, not a pawn, in a fraudulent scheme, and holding that defendant's refusal to withdraw his plea did not entitle him to specific performance of original plea agreement

In Murray, the Judge informed the defendant that he would “probably” receive youthful offender status and a nine-month sentence if he complied with certain plea conditions set by the court.

Noting a plea agreement conditioned on defendant's successful completion of a drug rehabilitation program "furthers important public policy goals."

In McAlpin, the Court of Appeals determined that preservation was not required because the lower court did not inform the defendant that he would be subject to postrelease supervision until “moments before imposing the sentence” (id. at 938, 936 N.Y.S.2d 666, 960 N.E.2d 435).

In Pichardo, the earlier sentence was much the longer of the two, so that the promise of concurrent sentencing meant that the second sentence, entered on the plea, carried no additional jail time.