From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Rodriguez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Oct 9, 2015
132 A.D.3d 1374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)

Opinion

1019 KA 13-01884.

10-09-2015

The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Ediberto RODRIGUEZ, Defendant–Appellant.

Michael J. Stachowski, P.C., Buffalo (Michael J. Stachowski of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant. Ediberto Rodriguez, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se. Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Lowry of Counsel), for Respondent.


Michael J. Stachowski, P.C., Buffalo (Michael J. Stachowski of Counsel), for Defendant–Appellant.

Ediberto Rodriguez, Defendant–Appellant Pro Se.

Frank A. Sedita, III, District Attorney, Buffalo (Ashley R. Lowry of Counsel), for Respondent.

Opinion

MEMORANDUM: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of assault in the second degree (Penal Law § 120.05[9] ). As the People correctly concede, “[b]ecause the court failed to specify the period of postrelease supervision or the permissible range of postrelease supervision prior to imposing sentence, reversal is required” (People v. Hernandez, 83 A.D.3d 1581, 1581, 921 N.Y.S.2d 585 ; see People v. Turner, 24 N.Y.3d 254, 258, 997 N.Y.S.2d 671 ; People v. Catu, 4 N.Y.3d 242, 245, 792 N.Y.S.2d 887, 825 N.E.2d 1081 ). We nevertheless reject defendant's contention in his pro se supplemental brief that the matter must be remitted to a different Supreme Court Justice inasmuch as he has “failed to show the existence of any actual impropriety, prejudice, or bias with respect to” sentencing or the manner in which the Justice herein conducted the proceedings (Matter of Serkez v. Serkez, 34 A.D.3d 592, 592, 824 N.Y.S.2d 165 ; see People v. Weekes, 46 A.D.3d 583, 584–585, 847 N.Y.S.2d 214, lv. denied 10 N.Y.3d 845, 859 N.Y.S.2d 404, 889 N.E.2d 91 ; see generally Judiciary Law § 14 ; People v. Moreno, 70 N.Y.2d 403, 405, 521 N.Y.S.2d 663, 516 N.E.2d 200 ).

In view of our decision, we do not address defendant's remaining contentions.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously reversed on the law, the plea is vacated, and the matter is remitted to Supreme Court, Erie County, for further proceedings on the indictment.

CENTRA, J.P., PERADOTTO, CARNI, WHALEN, and DeJOSEPH, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Rodriguez

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
Oct 9, 2015
132 A.D.3d 1374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
Case details for

People v. Rodriguez

Case Details

Full title:THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT, v. EDIBERTO RODRIGUEZ…

Court:SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

Date published: Oct 9, 2015

Citations

132 A.D.3d 1374 (N.Y. App. Div. 2015)
2015 N.Y. Slip Op. 7382
17 N.Y.S.3d 380

Citing Cases

People v. Wood

Here, the court informed defendant during the plea colloquy that a period of postrelease supervision would be…

People v. Wood

Here, the court informed defendant during the plea colloquy that a period of postrelease supervision would be…