§Why CasetextPricing

The People, Respondent,v.Daniel Boyer, Appellant.

Brief

13 Cited authorities

  1. North Carolina v. Alford

    400 U.S. 25 (1970)   Cited 10,643 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an individual may "consent to the imposition of a prison sentence" despite maintaining that he is innocent of the charged crime

  2. People v. Ford

    86 N.Y.2d 397 (N.Y. 1995)   Cited 1,246 times   3 Legal Analyses
    In Ford, the court held that due process requires that the record must be clear that the plea represents a voluntary and intelligent choice among the alternative courses of action open to the defendant.

  3. People v. Harris

    61 N.Y.2d 9 (N.Y. 1983)   Cited 1,659 times
    In People v Harris (61 N.Y.2d 9), within the context of determining whether a guilty plea was knowingly and voluntarily entered, the Court of Appeals concluded that no mandatory catechism was required.

  4. 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"

  5. 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

  6. People v. Williams

    14 N.Y.3d 198 (N.Y. 2010)   Cited 257 times
    Holding that “after release from prison, a legitimate expectation in the finality of a sentence arises and the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents reformation to attach a PRS component to the original completed sentence”

  7. People v. Hill

    2007 N.Y. Slip Op. 8782 (N.Y. 2007)   Cited 165 times   2 Legal Analyses
    In Hill, the new sentence consisted of a period of imprisonment less than the determinate sentence originally imposed, followed by a period of PRS that together equaled the incarceratory period of the original sentence (see Hill, 9 N.Y.3d at 192, 849 N.Y.S.2d 13, 879 N.E.2d 152).

  8. People v. Morse

    62 N.Y.2d 205 (N.Y. 1984)   Cited 179 times
    Holding that the "Legislature intended that the two or more predicate violent felony offenses required under the persistent violent felony offender law as the predicate for enhanced punishment under that statute be determined . . . sequentially (i.e., so that the second offense, to be counted as a predicate, must be committed after sentence was imposed on the first)"

  9. People v. Francis

    38 N.Y.2d 150 (N.Y. 1975)   Cited 180 times
    Upholding plea to attempted criminal possession of weapon despite uncertainty whether "place of business" exception applied

  10. People v. Acevedo

    2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 5582 (N.Y. 2011)   Cited 36 times
    In People v. Acevedo, 17 N.Y.3d 297, 929 N.Y.S.2d 55, 952 N.E.2d 1047 (2011), the Court of Appeals held that defendants will not be permitted, “by means of [seeking] vacatur and resentence” on prior convictions in which the court failed to impose required postrelease supervision, “to render their prior convictions useless as predicates to enhance punishment for the crimes they subsequently committed” (id. at 303, 929 N.Y.S.2d 55, 952 N.E.2d 1047).