27 Cited authorities

Puckett v. United States
556 U.S. 129 (2009) Cited 4,498 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that to be "clear or obvious" an error cannot be "subject to reasonable dispute"
Boykin v. Alabama
395 U.S. 238 (1969) Cited 13,216 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a silent record is insufficient for a waiver of certain specified rights not at issue here
North Carolina v. Alford
400 U.S. 25 (1970) Cited 10,639 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
Santobello v. New York
404 U.S. 257 (1971) Cited 4,860 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that if petitioner is granted specific performance he "should be resentenced by a different judge"
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.
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"
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
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”
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. Samms
95 N.Y.2d 52 (N.Y. 2000) Cited 222 times
Discussing this exception to the preservation rule

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

27 Cited authorities

Holding that to be "clear or obvious" an error cannot be "subject to reasonable dispute"

Holding that a silent record is insufficient for a waiver of certain specified rights not at issue here

Holding that an individual may "consent to the imposition of a prison sentence" despite maintaining that he is innocent of the charged crime

Holding that if petitioner is granted specific performance he "should be resentenced by a different judge"

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.

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"

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

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”

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

Discussing this exception to the preservation rule