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, etc., respondent, v. Damon BROWN, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered January 31, 2003, convicting him of burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant pleaded guilty to burglary in the third degree with a promise of a term of imprisonment of 3 1/2 to 7 years, with an additional promise that he would be permitted to withdraw the plea if he successfully completed a drug treatment program. After failing to complete three separate programs, the defendant was sentenced as promised. He appeals, contending that his plea was not knowing, intelligent, and voluntary, and that his sentence was excessive.
Contrary to the defendant's contentions, the Supreme Court properly accepted the plea. Although the defendant initially denied having an intent to commit a crime in the building, he later admitted that he entered the building with the intent to take property therefrom. The Supreme Court made sufficient inquiry to assure that the defendant understood the plea and his rights, and that there was a factual basis for the plea. The conclusory allegations of innocence that the defendant raised at the time of sentencing were belied by the record and were insufficient to warrant vacatur of the plea (see People v. Guerrero, 307 A.D.2d 935, 936, 762 N.Y.S.2d 888; People v. Solis, 302 A.D.2d 542, 543, 755 N.Y.S.2d 270).
The defendant was incorrectly informed that he would not be entitled to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive, and therefore the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v. Rose, 236 A.D.2d 637, 654 N.Y.S.2d 693; People v. Rolon, 220 A.D.2d 543, 632 N.Y.S.2d 208). Accordingly, we have considered the defendant's claim that the sentence was excessive, but find it to be without merit (see People v. Kazepis, 101 A.D.2d 816, 475 N.Y.S.2d 351; People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 20, 2004
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second 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)