1998-06992, People v. Garcia

Full title: People v. Garcia

Court: New York Court of Appeals

Date published: Jul 9, 1998

92 N.Y.2d 869 (N.Y. 1998)

677 N.Y.S.2d 772

700 N.E.2d 311

Opinion

92 N.Y.2d 869 700 N.E.2d 311, 677 N.Y.S.2d 772 The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ismael GARCIA, Appellant. 1998-06992 New York Court of Appeals July 9, 1998.

        Richard M. Greenberg, New York City, for appellant.

        Robert T. Johnson, District Attorney of Bronx County, New York City (Kevin Scott Koplin, Karen Swiger and Joseph N. Ferdenzi, of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

        MEMORANDUM.

        The order of the Appellate Division should be affirmed.

        On appeal, defendant contends that since he was misinformed about the maximum sentence to which he was exposed, his guilty plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Whether a plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary is dependent upon a number of factors "including the nature and terms of the agreement, the reasonableness of the bargain, and the age and experience of the accused" (People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733, 736, 675 N.Y.S.2d 327, 698 N.E.2d 46). That the defendant allegedly received inaccurate information regarding his possible sentence exposure is another factor which must be considered by the court, but it is not, in and of itself, dispositive.

        The record demonstrates that the length of the sentence was but one of many elements considered by the defendant before the plea was accepted. It is also true, on the facts presented here, that the defendant, arguably, could have received a consecutive sentence as his attorney advised him. Thus, it cannot be said, as a matter of law, that defendant's plea of guilty was not knowing, intelligent and voluntary. Defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

        KAYE, C.J., and TITONE, BELLACOSA, SMITH, LEVINE, CIPARICK and WESLEY, JJ., concur.

        Order affirmed in a memorandum.