From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2000-03091.

Decided April 5, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Leventhal, J.), rendered February 16, 2000, convicting him of kidnapping in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Howard Simmons, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Solomon Neubort of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the plea was not knowingly and intelligently made because the Supreme Court failed to advise him of the statutorily mandated period of post-release supervision ( see generally People v. Melio, 304 A.D.2d 247) is unpreserved for appellate review. The defendant never sought to withdraw his plea at the time of sentencing on this basis, nor did he move to vacate the judgment of conviction on this basis ( see People v. Folks, 306 A.D.2d 355; People v. Torres, 305 A.D.2d 701; People v. Cruz, 305 A.D.2d 424).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN and MASTRO, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Richards

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 5, 2004
6 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Richards

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. SEAN RICHARDS, appellant

Court:Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department

Date published: Apr 5, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 464 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
774 N.Y.S.2d 350

Citing Cases

People v. Redcross

The defendant's valid waiver of the right to appeal precludes review of his challenge to the procedures the…

People v. Norman

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed. The defendant's contentions are unpreserved for appellate review ( see…