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. Mitchell

NEW YORK SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, SECOND DEPARTMENT


January 19, 2010

THE PEOPLE, ETC., RESPONDENT,
v.
LAYSHAWN MITCHELL, APPELLANT.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Eng, J.), rendered November 13, 2006, convicting him of attempted sodomy in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

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.

REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P., HOWARD MILLER, JOHN M. LEVENTHAL and CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, JJ.

(Ind. No. 2559/03)

DECISION & ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing in accordance herewith.

The defendant's contention that his plea was not voluntary because it was coerced is unpreserved for appellate review, since he did not move to withdraw his plea on that basis (see People v Clarke, 93 NY2d 904, 906; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665-666; People v Bolton, 63 AD3d 1087, lv denied 13 NY3d 834; People v Antoine, 59 AD3d 560). In any event, his plea of guilty was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered (see People v Garcia, 92 NY2d 869, 870-871; People v Harris, 61 NY2d 9, 17).

However, on the record before us, it is not clear whether the court sentenced the defendant as a persistent violent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.08), or as a persistent felony offender (see Penal Law § 70.10). Accordingly, we vacate the sentence and remit the matter to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing, including a determination and adjudication of the defendant's status under article 400 of the Criminal Procedure Law.

In light of our determination, we do not reach the defendant's remaining contention raised in his supplemental pro se brief.

RIVERA, J.P., MILLER, LEVENTHAL and CHAMBERS, JJ., concur.

20100119

© 1992-2010 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.