People v. Polanco
| Citation | 648 N.Y.S.2d 56,232 A.D.2d 674 |
| Parties | The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Jesus W. POLANCO, Appellant. |
| Decision Date | 10 October 1996 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court Appellate Division |
Susan B. Marhoffer, Windham, for appellant.
Gerald F. Mollen, District Attorney, Binghamton, for respondent.
Before CREW, J.P., and WHITE, YESAWICH, PETERS and CARPINELLO, JJ.
Appeals (1) from a judgment of the County Court of Broome County (Mathews, J.), rendered November 18, 1994, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, and (2) by permission, from an order of the said court, entered August 1, 1995, which denied defendant's motion pursuant to CPL 440.20 to set aside the sentence, without a hearing.
Defendant, who pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and was sentenced as a second felony offender to a prison term of 4 1/2 to 9 years, now claims that County Court improperly adjudicated him as a second felony offender. On the day of the plea allocution, the People filed a statement pursuant to CPL 400.21 charging that defendant previously had been convicted within this State of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, which constituted a predicate felony. At the plea allocution, defendant unequivocally indicated that he understood that he was pleading guilty to the instant crime as a second felony offender in light of that prior conviction and that he in fact committed said prior crime. Notably defendant, who was represented by counsel and consulted with him, raised no challenge to County Court's consideration of his prior conviction and, at the time of sentencing, made no objection to being sentenced as a second felony offender. Under these circumstances, we find that there was substantial compliance with CPL 400.21 (see, People v. Ford, 157 A.D.2d 992, 550 N.Y.S.2d 472, lv. denied 75 N.Y.2d 919, 555 N.Y.S.2d 37, 554 N.E.2d 74).
ORDERED that the judgment and order are affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Curtis v. Fischer
...event, it appears that the court "substantially complied" with the purposes of C.P.L. § 400.21. See, e.g., People v. Polanco, 232 A.D.2d 674, 675, 648 N.Y.S.2d 56 (3d Dept.1996). Moreover, Curtis has not shown that he suffered any prejudice or surprise as a result of the way that the senten......
-
People v. Crippa
...adequately apprised him of his right to challenge the prior out-of-State conviction (see, CPL 400.21; see generally, People v. Polanco, 232 A.D.2d 674, 648 N.Y.S.2d 56). Furthermore, we find no error in County Court's denial of defendant's motion to vacate the sentence on the ground that hi......
-
People v. Miller
...636, 467 N.Y.S.2d 355, 454 N.E.2d 938; see also, People v. Proctor, 79 N.Y.2d 992, 584 N.Y.S.2d 435, 594 N.E.2d 929; People v. Polanco, 232 A.D.2d 674, 675, 648 N.Y.S.2d 56; People v. Ramos, 150 A.D.2d 811, 543 N.Y.S.2d O'BRIEN, J.P., and RITTER, THOMPSON, FRIEDMANN and GOLDSTEIN, JJ., conc......
-
People v. Cooper
...People v. Crippa, 245 A.D.2d 811, 812, 666 N.Y.S.2d 781, lv. denied 92 N.Y.2d 850, 677 N.Y.S.2d 80, 699 N.E.2d 440; People v. Polanco, 232 A.D.2d 674, 675, 648 N.Y.S.2d 56). Defendant's remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without ORDERED that the judgment and order are ......