§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Anthony Jones, Appellant.

Brief

6 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Farrar

    52 N.Y.2d 302 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 1,115 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Expressing that "while the court legitimately may indicate that a proposed sentence is fair and acceptable, the necessary exercise of discretion cannot be fixed immutably at the time of the plea, for the decision requires information that may be unavailable then"

  2. Mask v. McGinnis

    233 F.3d 132 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 109 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding under AEDPA that the “state court's determination of factual issues ... were so closely intertwined with the state court's articulation of an erroneous legal standard, to which we owe no deference, that we can discern no independent factual issues to which we should defer”

  3. People v. Hernandez

    93 N.Y.2d 261 (N.Y. 1999)   Cited 52 times

    Argued March 30, 1999 Decided May 6, 1999 Judah Serfaty, for appellant. Robert A. Schwartz, for respondent. BELLACOSA, J.: This appeal stems from defendant's conviction for attempted rape and sexual abuse, each in the first degree. Defendant raises three issues: (1) the trial court's denial of his lawyer's challenge for cause of a potential juror, a New York State legislator; (2) a jury instruction defining attempt as a "substantial step" toward the completion of the crime (rather than specifying

  4. People v. Pierce

    16 Misc. 3d 1126 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2007)   Cited 14 times

    No. 1624/2002. July 2, 2007. Kahn, J. Crimes — Sentence — Mandatory Surcharge — Deferral. Criminal Procedure Law — § 420.40 (Deferral of mandatory surcharge; financial hardship hearings).

  5. People v. Wheeler

    244 A.D.2d 277 (N.Y. App. Div. 1997)   Cited 5 times

    November 25, 1997 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Budd Goodman, J.). Defendant's challenge to the imposition of the surcharge should be raised in the sentencing court by way of a motion for resentencing ( People v. Rada, 160 A.D.2d 552). Such determination should be made at the end of a defendant's sentence. Consequently, defendant's claim is premature ( People v Velasquez, 198 A.D.2d 25, lv denied 82 N.Y.2d 932). Concur — Murphy, P.J., Sullivan, Wallach, Tom and Andrias, JJ.

  6. People v. Bradley

    249 A.D.2d 103 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998)   Cited 2 times

    April 16, 1998 Appeal from the Supreme Court, New York County (Bonnie Wittner, J.). Defendant's claim is without merit since the record fails to indicate that defendant's guilty plea was made in reliance on a promise that the surcharge would not be imposed or that defendant was motivated to enter the plea for any reason other than his desire to avail himself of an extremely advantageous plea bargain ( see, People v. Amaya, 219 A.D.2d 523, lv denied 87 N.Y.2d 844). We see no reason to vacate the imposition