RIVERA, NOEL R., PEOPLE v ( 2017 )


Menu:
  •            SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK
    Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
    338
    KA 14-00631
    PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., SMITH, CARNI, LINDLEY, AND NEMOYER, JJ.
    THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,
    V                              MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
    NOEL R. RIVERA, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF
    COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
    SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (DANIEL GROSS OF
    COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.
    Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (David
    D. Egan, J.), rendered March 21, 2011. The judgment convicted
    defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of murder in the second degree and
    burglary in the first degree (two counts).
    It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is
    unanimously affirmed.
    Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him
    upon his plea of guilty of murder in the second degree (Penal Law
    § 125.25 [1]) and two counts of burglary in the first degree (§ 140.30
    [2], [3]). Defendant was sentenced to an indeterminate term of
    incarceration of 15 years to life for murder, to be served
    concurrently with determinate terms of 15 years imposed on the
    burglary counts. With respect to the burglary counts, defendant was
    also sentenced to five-year periods of postrelease supervision (PRS).
    We agree with defendant that Supreme Court breached its
    obligation to advise him, at the time of the plea, that the sentences
    imposed upon his conviction of two counts of burglary would include
    periods of PRS (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245). In these
    circumstances, however, we conclude that reversal of the judgment of
    conviction and vacatur of the plea are not required (cf. id. at 245;
    People v Corsaro, 128 AD3d 1538, 1538). Because “defendant is subject
    to ‘lifetime parole supervision, the imposition of postrelease
    supervision following his imprisonment for [burglary] is duplicative
    and does not deprive him of the benefit of his plea bargain’ ” (People
    v Gillard, 126 AD3d 1285, 1286, quoting People v Haynes, 14 AD3d 789,
    791, lv denied 4 NY3d 831).
    Entered:    March 24, 2017                         Frances E. Cafarell
    Clerk of the Court
    

Document Info

Docket Number: KA 14-00631

Filed Date: 3/24/2017

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/24/2017