People Of The State Of N.Y. v. Murray

Decision Date24 June 2010
Citation932 N.E.2d 877,15 N.Y.3d 725,906 N.Y.S.2d 521
PartiesThe PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Kezine MURRAY, Appellant.
CourtNew York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

15 N.Y.3d 725
932 N.E.2d 877
906 N.Y.S.2d 521

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
Kezine MURRAY, Appellant.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 24, 2010.


906 N.Y.S.2d 522

Mark Diamond, New York City, for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn (Solomon Neubort and Leonard Joblove of counsel), for respondent.

15 N.Y.3d 726
932 N.E.2d 878

OPINION OF THE COURT

MEMORANDUM.

The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

Defendant entered a plea to criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree with the understanding that he would “probably” be treated as a youthful offender and sentenced to a term of nine months if he produced proof that he was in school, received a favorable probation report, and appeared as directed for sentencing. He was advised that if he did not meet these conditions, he would be sentenced as an adult to a term of two years in prison followed by two years of postrelease supervision (PRS). Defendant did not appear on the appointed sentencing date. When he did appear, several months later and after issuance of a bench warrant, the court, citing defendant's nonappearance, announced at the outset of the proceeding that it would sentence him as an adult, and, after hearing argument from defendant's counsel, imposed an adult sentence. The reason for the court's decision not to treat defendant as a youthful offender-his nonappearance on the original sentencing date-was rooted in the terms of defendant's plea and evident to all concerned; this was not a situation in which the court arbitrarily trifled with the legitimate expectations of the defendant based on the plea ( see

932 N.E.2d 879
906 N.Y.S.2d 523

People v. Selikoff, 35 N.Y.2d 227, 240, 360 N.Y.S.2d 623, 318 N.E.2d 784 [1974] ). Under the circumstances, the court did not abuse its discretion in sentencing defendant as an adult.

Defendant's further claim that the term of the PRS component of his sentence (three years), although of legal duration, did not conform to the term indicated at the plea proceeding (two years), is not preserved. While preservation is unnecessary to our address of a nonconforming PRS sentence where the defendant has not been made aware of that part of the sentence

before its imposition ( see People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 546, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18 [2007] ), here defendant was advised of what the sentence would be, including its PRS term, at the outset of the sentencing proceeding. Because...

To continue reading

Request your trial
108 cases
  • People v. Peque
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 19 de novembro de 2013
    ...certain circumstances, this preservation requirement extends to challenges to the voluntariness of a guilty plea ( see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 [2010];Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d at 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160). However, under People v. Lopez, wh......
  • People v. Peque
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals
    • 19 de novembro de 2013
    ...certain circumstances, this preservation requirement extends to challenges to the voluntariness of a guilty plea ( see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 [2010];Toxey, 86 N.Y.2d at 726, 631 N.Y.S.2d 119, 655 N.E.2d 160). However, under People v. Lopez, wh......
  • People v. Kates, 638
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 15 de junho de 2018
    ...219–223, 32 N.Y.S.3d 17, 51 N.E.3d 528 [2016] ; People v. Crowder, 24 N.Y.3d 1134, 1136–1137, 26 N.E.3d 1164 [2015] ; People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726–727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 [2010] ; cf. People v. Louree, 8 N.Y.3d 541, 545–546, 838 N.Y.S.2d 18, 869 N.E.2d 18 [2007] ). In ......
  • People v. Turner
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court Appellate Division
    • 14 de junho de 2013
    ...of Appeals has also held in at least one instance, however, that a defendant is required to preserve a Catu error ( see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877). In Murray, the defendant was informed prior to his plea that he faced a two-year period of PRS but, whe......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT