People v. Thomas
| Decision Date | 10 May 2000 |
| Citation | 272 A.D.2d 985,708 N.Y.S.2d 681 |
| Court | New York Supreme Court — Appellate Division |
| Parties | THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent,<BR>v.<BR>BRIAN THOMAS, Appellant. |
Present — Green, J. P., Hayes, Wisner and Hurlbutt, JJ.
Judgment unanimously affirmed.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted burglary in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 140.30 [1]). Contrary to the contention of the People, defendant has preserved for our review his challenge to the severity of his sentence. Because Supreme Court did not advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration, including the potential period of postrelease supervision, the waiver by defendant of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence (see, People v Cormack, 269 AD2d 815; People v Wynn, 262 AD2d 1052; cf., People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827). We conclude, however, that the five-year period of postrelease supervision imposed by the court is neither unduly harsh nor severe.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
People v. Goss
...to appeal, executed in conjunction with his allegedly involuntary plea, does not preclude the instant appeal (see, id.; People v Thomas, 272 A.D.2d 985, 985-986). Turning to the merits of defendant's appeal, we begin with the well-settled proposition that "[a] trial court has the constituti......
-
People v. Cruz
...of postrelease supervision (see generally People v. Lococo, 92 N.Y.2d 825, 827, 677 N.Y.S.2d 57, 699 N.E.2d 416 ; People v. Thomas, 272 A.D.2d 985, 985–986, 708 N.Y.S.2d 681 ). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence, including the term of postrelease supervision, is not unduly harsh or......
-
People v. Cooney, 12530
...nor are there any extraordinary circumstances which would warrant modification of the sentence in the interest of justice (see, People v Thomas, 272 A.D.2d 985). Defendant further contends that the period of postrelease supervision was not mentioned to her when she agreed to the plea bargai......
- People v. Hales