Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

People v. Morales

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT


March 24, 2009

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
v.
LUIS MORALES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward J. McLaughlin, J.), rendered June 5, 2006, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal sexual act in the first degree and burglary in the second degree, and sentencing him, as a persistent violent felony offender, to concurrent terms of 25 years to life and 16 years to life, respectively, unanimously affirmed.

Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.

Saxe, J.P., Friedman, Sweeny, Renwick, Freedman, JJ.

514/05

The court properly denied defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea (see People v Alexander, 97 NY2d 482 [2002]; People v Frederick, 45 NY2d 520 [1978]). The record establishes that the plea was entered knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily (see People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 19 [1983]). At a proceeding the day before the plea, it was made clear to defendant that he was a persistent violent felony offender who could not receive anything less than a life sentence. During the colloquies leading up to the plea, it was made equally clear to defendant that the offer was an aggregate term of 25 years to life to cover all the charges. Defendant, who was exposed to a much greater aggregate term if convicted of multiple charges after trial, accepted this offer. It was only after defendant agreed to accept this sentence that the court misspoke in referring to a 25-year determinate sentence. Neither this misstatement, nor the court's failure to specify the minimum term of the concurrent sentence defendant would receive on the burglary conviction, could have influenced defendant's decision to plead guilty.

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

20090324

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.