From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Kai Ming Hou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1993
193 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)

Opinion

May 17, 1993

Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (George, J.).


Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The record indicates that the defendant understood at the plea hearing that he would be sentenced to consecutive terms of six years to life, which was the sentence which the court actually imposed. While the statement made by the court at the plea hearing that it would impose concurrent sentences of six years to life might have created "apparent ambiguity", it is clear from this record that the statement was plainly the result of some inadvertence on the court's part and our reason tells us that it was a mere mistake (see, People v Wright, 56 N.Y.2d 613). We note further that the error was recognized and corrected before the conclusion of the plea proceeding.

The record further indicates that the defendant received meaningful representation of counsel at his plea and sentence (see, People v Baldi, 54 N.Y.2d 137). Thompson, J.P., Sullivan, Miller, Ritter and Santucci, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Kai Ming Hou

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department
May 17, 1993
193 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
Case details for

People v. Kai Ming Hou

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v. KAI MING HOU, Appellant

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

Date published: May 17, 1993

Citations

193 A.D.2d 759 (N.Y. App. Div. 1993)
598 N.Y.S.2d 984

Citing Cases

People v. Laurent

The terms of the defendant's sentence were clearly set forth by the Supreme Court, and the defendant…

People v. McClurkin

ilty with the assistance of competent counsel in exchange for the promise of favorable sentences ( see People…