People v. Medina
| Decision Date | 25 June 2015 |
| Docket Number | 106463 |
| Citation | 129 A.D.3d 1385,12 N.Y.S.3d 352,2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05520 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Juan MEDINA, Appellant. |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
129 A.D.3d 1385
12 N.Y.S.3d 352
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 05520
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent
v.
Juan MEDINA, Appellant.
106463
Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
June 25, 2015.
Brian M. Callahan, Schenectady, for appellant, and appellant pro se.
Robert M. Carney, District Attorney, Schenectady (Peter H. Willis of counsel), for respondent.
Before: PETERS, P.J., GARRY, EGAN JR. and LYNCH, JJ.
Opinion
EGAN JR., J.
Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of
Schenectady County (Drago, J.), rendered November 14, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.
In full satisfaction of a six-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. Defendant thereafter was sentenced—
consistent with the terms of the plea agreement—to a prison term of 5 ½ years followed by 3 ½ years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals, primarily contending that his plea was involuntary because he was not adequately apprised of the postrelease supervision (hereinafter PRS) component of his sentence.
We affirm. Although defendant's challenge to the voluntariness of his plea survives his uncontested waiver of the right to appeal, it is unpreserved for our review in the absence of an appropriate postallocution motion (see People v. White, 119 A.D.3d 1286, 1287, 990 N.Y.S.2d 726 [2014], lv. denied 24 N.Y.3d 1222, 4 N.Y.S.3d 610, 28 N.E.3d 46 [2015] ). Contrary to defendant's assertion, County Court twice advised defendant—prior to accepting his plea—of the range of PRS to which he would be subject, reiterated this range again prior to imposing sentence and thereafter expressly...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Luckerson
...26 N.E.3d 1164 [2015] ; see People v. Murray, 15 N.Y.3d 725, 726–727, 906 N.Y.S.2d 521, 932 N.E.2d 877 [2010] ; People v. Medina, 129 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 12 N.Y.S.3d 352 [2015] ).ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.PETERS, P.J., EGAN JR., ROSE and DEVINE, JJ., ...
-
People v. Hakkenberg
...and intelligent (see People v. Haffiz, 19 N.Y.3d 883, 884, 951 N.Y.S.2d 690, 976 N.E.2d 216 [2012] ; People v. Medina, 129 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 12 N.Y.S.3d 352 [2015], lv. denied 26 N.Y.3d 1090, 23 N.Y.S.3d 647, 44 N.E.3d 945 [2015] ).Defendant also contends that County Court erred in denying......
-
People v. Ortiz
...565, 170 N.E.3d 439 [2021] ; People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 281, 590 N.Y.S.2d 46, 604 N.E.2d 108 [1992] ; People v. Medina, 129 A.D.3d 1385, 1386, 12 N.Y.S.3d 352 [2015], lv denied 26 N.Y.3d 1090, 23 N.Y.S.3d 647, 44 N.E.3d 945 [2015] ). However, we find that defendant's CPL 390.50(2)(a......
- People v. Anderson