§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Roberto Estremera, Appellant.

Brief

15 Cited authorities

  1. People v. Lingle

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 3308 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 480 times
    Holding that a defendant's right to appeal after a resentencing is "limited to the correction of errors or the abuse of discretion at the resentencing proceeding"

  2. People v. Catu

    4 N.Y.3d 242 (N.Y. 2005)   Cited 506 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Vacating guilty plea when defendant not told of PRS because PRS is a "definite, immediate and largely automatic" direct consequence of sentence

  3. 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"

  4. People v. Sparber

    2008 N.Y. Slip Op. 3946 (N.Y. 2008)   Cited 355 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, by imposing PRS terms, DOCS usurped the judicial function as defined by New York law; only the sentencing court has the authority to impose the PRS component of the sentence and must do so at the time of sentencing

  5. 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

  6. 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).

  7. People v. Pignataro

    2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 8286 (N.Y. 2013)   Cited 24 times
    In Pignataro, the defendant challenged his resentencing under N.Y. Penal Law § 70.85, claiming the statute is unconstitutional because it deprives him of his right to vacate his guilty plea.

  8. People v. Green

    54 N.Y.2d 878 (N.Y. 1981)   Cited 74 times
    Holding that because defense counsel did not request that defendant be afforded an opportunity to speak or bring such omission to the sentencing court's attention, this claim had not been preserved for review

  9. Matter of Johnson v. Pataki

    91 N.Y.2d 214 (N.Y. 1997)   Cited 39 times
    Observing that courts are limited to examining whether the actions of the Governor, taken pursuant to an executive order, are constitutional

  10. People v. Mills

    117 A.D.3d 1555 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014)   Cited 9 times

    2014-05-9 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Richard F. MILLS, Defendant–Appellant. Kathleen E. Casey, Barker, for Defendant–Appellant. Richard F. Mills, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen E. Casey, Barker, for Defendant–Appellant. Richard F. Mills, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Friedman, District Attorney, Batavia (William G. Zickl of Counsel), for Respondent. PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, and VALENTINO, JJ. MEMORANDUM: Defendant was convicted upon a