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. Michael DONOFRIO, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Neary, J.), rendered January 9, 2013, convicting him of burglary in the second degree (three counts), upon his plea of guilty, and sentencing him to concurrent determinate terms of 10 years of imprisonment on all counts, and a period of 7 years of postrelease supervision with respect to each count.
ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law, by reducing the period of postrelease supervision of 7 years to 5 years with respect to each count; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed.
The minutes of the defendant's plea proceeding reveal that the court promised the defendant that it would impose a 10–year term of imprisonment for each of three counts of burglary in the second degree, with the sentences to be served concurrently to each other, plus a 5–year period of postrelease supervision with respect to each count. However, at the sentencing hearing on January 9, 2013, although the court imposed the promised 10–year concurrent sentences, it imposed a period of 7 years of postrelease supervision. As the People correctly concede, not only did this 7–year postrelease supervision period deviate from the earlier promise, it also exceeded the statutory maximum period of 5 years (see Penal Law § 70.45). Accordingly, the period of postrelease supervision with respect to each count must be reduced to the extent indicated herein (see People v. Robinson, 74 AD3d 1103; People v. Serrano, 21 AD3d 970).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenge to the hearing court's suppression determination (see People v. Kemp, 94 N.Y.2d 831; People v. Persaud, 118 AD3d 820) and of his claim that the agreed-upon sentence was excessive (see People v. Lopez, 6 NY3d 248; People v. Callahan, 80 N.Y.2d 273, 281; People v. Seaberg, 74 N.Y.2d 1, 10; People v. Arias, 100 AD3d 914, 915; People v. Hawthorne, 85 AD3d 819).
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 17, 2014
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)