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. Andre DENNIS Also Known as Denise Dennis, Defendant–Appellant.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J. at plea and sentencing; Daniel P. Conviser, J. at postconviction proceedings and resentencings), rendered May 22, 2013, as amended July 26, 2018 and June 19, 2018, convicting defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree, and sentencing her, as a second felony offender, to a term of two to four years, unanimously affirmed.
After a hearing at which defendant testified, the hearing court correctly determined that defendant's 2000 second-degree burglary conviction in Onondaga County was not unconstitutionally obtained, and that it therefore qualified as a predicate felony conviction in the instant case. Defendant failed to demonstrate that, had she known of the postrelease supervision component of her 2000 sentence, she would not have pleaded guilty (see People v. Smith, 28 N.Y.3d 191, 205, 43 N.Y.S.3d 771, 66 N.E.3d 641 [2016] ). There is no basis for disturbing the court's credibility determinations. Among other things, defendant, who had been charged with first-degree burglary, received a favorable disposition with a very lenient sentence. In the instant proceedings, defendant never alleged that she was actually innocent of the burglary, or that she had a viable defense. Regardless of whether she had been convicted of the first or second-degree crime, after trial or by plea, the sentence would have included a term of PRS. The record supports the resentencing court's rejection of defendant's assertion that, simply to avoid a term of PRS, she would have risked a sentence of up to 25 years by going to trial on a first-degree burglary charge.
We decline to reach the People's procedural arguments.
We perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.
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.
Docket No: 8300
Decided: January 31, 2019
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First 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)