People v. Charles

Citation683 N.Y.S.2d 438
PartiesThe PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Gerald CHARLES, appellant. . Supreme Court of New York, Appellate Division, Second Department
Decision Date16 December 1998
CourtNew York Supreme Court — Appellate Division

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Roseann B. MacKechnie and Thomas S. Burka of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by the defendant from two judgments of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Juviler, J.), both rendered September 29, 1997, convicting him of sodomy in the first degree under Indictment No. 12213/96, and sodomy in the first degree under Indictment No. 3775/97, upon his pleas of guilty, and sentencing him to an indeterminate term of 4 to 8 years imprisonment on his conviction under Indictment No. 12213/96 to run concurrently with an indeterminate term of 4 to 8 years imprisonment on his conviction under Indictment No. 3775/97.

ORDERED that the judgment under Indictment No. 3775/97 is affirmed; and it is further,

ORDERED that the judgment under Indictment No. 12213/96 is modified, on the law, by reducing the sentence imposed thereon from an indeterminate term of 4 to 8 years imprisonment to an indeterminate term of 2 2/3 to 8 years imprisonment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in denying the defendant's pro se motion to vacate his pleas of guilty (see, CPL 220.60[3]; People v. Ellerbe, 237 A.D.2d 299, 655 N.Y.S.2d 409). The defendant's protestations of innocence and of coercion are belied by the record (see, People v. Brown, --- A.D.2d ----, 675 N.Y.S.2d 555; People v. Sider, 232 A.D.2d 666, 649 N.Y.S.2d 455; People v. Evans, 204 A.D.2d 346, 614 N.Y.S.2d 151). The defendant's claim that he was coerced by his attorney's warning regarding the strength of the prosecution's case is without merit (see, People v. Samuel, 208 A.D.2d 776, 617 N.Y.S.2d 494; People v. Anthony, 188 A.D.2d 477, 591 N.Y.S.2d 181).

The defendant committed the crime of sodomy in the first degree under Indictment No. 12213/96 in 1993. Accordingly, as the People concede, the Supreme Court erred in imposing a minimum term of imprisonment which was one-half of the maximum term of that count (see, Penal Law former § 70.02[4] ). The court should have imposed a minimum term of imprisonment of one-third of the maximum term, to run concurrently with the other sentence of an indeterminate term of 4 to 8 years...

To continue reading

Request your trial
4 cases
  • People v. Dazzo
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • February 14, 2012
    ...83 A.D.3d 537, 921 N.Y.S.2d 234; People v. Elting, 18 A.D.3d 770, 771, 795 N.Y.S.2d 699; People v. Charles, 256 A.D.2d 472, 473, 683 N.Y.S.2d 438; People v. Samuel, 208 A.D.2d 776, 777, 617 N.Y.S.2d 494). Further, the defendant acknowledged that he was satisfied with the representation he h......
  • People v. Solis
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • November 6, 2013
    ...on the part of his former attorney ( see People v. Elting, 18 A.D.3d 770, 771, 795 N.Y.S.2d 699;People v. Charles, 256 A.D.2d 472, 473, 683 N.Y.S.2d 438;People v. Samuel, 208 A.D.2d 776, 777, 617 N.Y.S.2d 494). Nor did the Supreme Court's remarks regarding the defendant's sentence exposure ......
  • 5-Star Management, Inc. v. Daan Properties, Inc.
    • United States
    • New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division
    • December 16, 1998
  • People v. Charles
    • United States
    • New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals
    • April 12, 1999

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