From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2003
305 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)

Opinion

2001-02202

Submitted May 7, 2003.

May 27, 2003.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered February 20, 2001, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Mark Diamond, New York, N.Y., for appellant.

Francis D. Phillips II, District Attorney, Goshen, N.Y. (Daniel M. Reback of counsel), for respondent.

Before: MYRIAM J. ALTMAN, J.P., GABRIEL M. KRAUSMAN, GLORIA GOLDSTEIN, HOWARD MILLER, STEPHEN G. CRANE, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that the court erred in failing to advise him that he would be subject to an automatic and statutorily-mandated three-year period of post-release supervision following the completion of his determinate sentence. However, this contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v. Wilson, 296 A.D.2d 430, lv denied 99 N.Y.2d 540), as is his contention that his factual allocution was insufficient (see People v. Lopez, 71 N.Y.2d 662, 665; People v. Konstantinides, 295 A.D.2d 537, 538). The defendant's remaining contentions either are without merit or have been rendered academic in light of our determination.

ALTMAN, J.P., KRAUSMAN, GOLDSTEIN, H. MILLER and CRANE, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Torres

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 27, 2003
305 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
Case details for

People v. Torres

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. HENRY TORRES, SR., appellant

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

Date published: May 27, 2003

Citations

305 A.D.2d 701 (N.Y. App. Div. 2003)
759 N.Y.S.2d 696

Citing Cases

People v. Richards

The defendant's contention that the plea was not knowingly and intelligently made because the Supreme Court…