Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE of the State of New York, Respondent, v. William D. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted rape in the first degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 130.35[1] ). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that his plea was not knowingly entered (see People v. VanDeViver, 56 A.D.3d 1118, 867 N.Y.S.2d 586, lv. denied 11 N.Y.3d 931, 874 N.Y.S.2d 16, 902 N.E.2d 450), and in any event that contention is without merit. Defendant also failed to preserve for our review his contention that County Court erred in imposing an enhanced sentence without affording him the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see id. at 1118-1119, 867 N.Y.S.2d 586). We note, however, that the People correctly concede that the enhanced sentence is illegal inasmuch as it includes a 12-year period of postrelease supervision. At the time defendant committed the crime of which he was convicted, the maximum period of postrelease supervision that could be imposed for a class C violent felony conviction was five years (see Penal Law former § 70.45[2][f] ). We therefore modify the judgment by reducing the period of postrelease supervision to a period of five years. Because the sentence as modified complies with the plea agreement, the sentence is no longer improperly enhanced.
It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously modified on the law by reducing the period of postrelease supervision to a period of five years and as modified the judgment is affirmed.
MEMORANDUM:
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 05, 2009
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)