From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Wronka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)

Opinion

2002-08092.

Decided April 26, 2004.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (Rosenwasser, J.), rendered August 2, 2002, convicting him of robbery 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, WILLIAM F. MASTRO, JJ.


DECISION ORDER

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily entered because he was not meaningfully informed about the mandatory period of post-release supervision he would face following the completion of his determinate sentence. However, this claim is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant did not move to withdraw his plea before sentencing or vacate the judgment of conviction ( see People v. Concepcion, 2 A.D.3d 873; People v. Miller, 1 A.D.3d 613, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 598; People v. Mapp, 308 A.D.2d 462, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 575; People v. Cruz, 305 A.D.2d 424). In any event, the record establishes that the defendant was adequately advised that he would be subject to a period of post-release supervision as a consequence of his plea ( see People v. Cruz, supra).

Furthermore, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that his sentence was harsh and excessive ( see People v. Hidalgo, 91 N.Y.2d 733; People v. Dixon, A.D.3d [2d Dept, Mar. 22, 2004]; People v. Morrow, 3 A.D.3d 584; People v. Barnes, 306 A.D.2d 537, lv denied 1 N.Y.3d 568).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

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


Summaries of

People v. Wronka

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
Apr 26, 2004
6 A.D.3d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
Case details for

People v. Wronka

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE, ETC., respondent, v. JASON WRONKA, appellant

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

Date published: Apr 26, 2004

Citations

6 A.D.3d 735 (N.Y. App. Div. 2004)
775 N.Y.S.2d 167

Citing Cases

People v. Stamatelos

This claim is incorrect ( see CPL 20.40[a]; People v. Tullo, 34 N.Y.2d 712, affg 41 A.D.2d 957; People v.…

People v. Richardson

The defendant's contention that his plea allocution was insufficient is unpreserved for appellate review,…