People v. McGrath, 373 N.E.2d 284 (NY 1977). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. McGrath, 373 N.E.2d 284 (NY 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Taylor (nyappdiv, 2009-03-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Taylor
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
Contrary to the defendant’s contention, his plea was not rendered involuntary by the court’s failure to advise him that as a consequence of this plea he may receive an enhanced sentence for any crime that he may commit in the future (see People v Mc-Grath, 43 NY2d 803, 804 [1977]; People v Sanchez-Martinez, 35 AD3d 632, 633 [2006]; People v Outer, 197 AD2d 543, 544 [1993]; People v Depeyster, 115 AD2d 613 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Rodriguez
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
The possibility of enhanced punishment for a crime that may be committed in the future is a collateral consequence of the plea, and the court has no duty to inform the defendant of such a consequence (see People v Ford, 86 NY2d 397, 403 [1995]; People v McGrath, 43 NY2d 803, 804 [1977]; People v Depeyster, 115 AD2d 613 [1985]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Brinkhuis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2007 · confidence medium
His claim that he was not advised that the crime of which he was convicted constituted a violent felony which could result in an enhanced sentence for a subsequent conviction was not a basis to set aside his plea of guilty (see People v McGrath, 43 NY2d 803, 804 [1977]; People v Sanchez-Martinez, 35 AD3d 632 [2006]; People v Parker, 309 AD2d 508, 509 [2003]; People v Outer, 197 AD2d 543, 544 [1993]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Richardson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · signal: see · confidence high
Moreover, “defendant’s eligibility for an enhanced sentence upon a hypothetical future conviction is merely a ‘collateral consequence’ of a plea of guilty that the defendant need not be advised of in order for the guilty plea to be deemed fully informed” (People v August, 33 AD3d 1046, 1050 [2006], lv denied 8 NY3d 878 [2007]; see People v McGrath, 43 NY2d 803, 804 [1977]; People v Brown, 68 AD3d 1150, 1151 [2009]; People v Folk, 43 AD3d 1229, 1230 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1033 [2008]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Hannon
N.Y. App. Div. · 1994 · signal: see also · confidence low
We cannot accept as a serious proposition that a defendant not so inclined would actually consider rejecting an offered plea upon the basis of advice that by accepting it he would be exposing himself to enhanced penalties 'the next time around’.” (People v Silvers, 163 AD2d 71, 72 ; see also, People v McGrath, 43 NY2d 803 ; People v Barnes, 202 AD2d 350 , lv denied 83 NY2d 908 .) In sum, defendant’s prior plea as evidenced by the record was knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently entered.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Depeyster
N.Y. App. Div. · 1985 · signal: see also · confidence low
As the Fourth Department has noted in this connection, the fact "[tjhat a defendant is subject to an enhanced sentence for a crime he may commit in the future is a collateral consequence of his plea and not the type of consequence about which he must be advised” (People v Sirianni, 89 AD2d 775 ; see also, People v McGrath, 43 NY2d 803, 804 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York, Respondent,
v.
John McGrath, Appellant
New York Court of Appeals.
Dec 19, 1977.
373 N.E.2d 284
APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL, Donald H. Zuckerman and William E. Hellerstein for appellant., John J. Santucci, District Attorney (William G. Schrager of counsel), for respondent.
Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke Concur.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published

OPINION OF THE COURT

Memorandum.

Order of the Appellate Division affirmed.

Defendant pleaded guilty to robbery in the third degree in 1949, and has long ago served the indefinite sentence then imposed. He is able to appeal by virtue of resentence obtained under the rule in People v Montgomery (24 NY2d 130). He offers a melange of arguments based on State and Federal cases in which guilty pleas have been set aside.

His guilty plea falls within none of the several precedents relied upon. Defendant was represented by counsel at all times. He had had prior criminal court experience, including[*804] that of pleading guilty. In the several motions he has made in the nature of coram nobis he has been uniformly unsuccessful. The crime with which he was charged, robbery in the second degree, and the lesser crime of robbery in the third degree to which he pleaded guilty, consist of simple elements understandable for pleading purposes by laymen in every material way. At the time of the plea there was no assertion or intimation casting doubt on defendant’s guilt of the crime charged. Most novel and ironic is the contention, among others offered by defendant, that he was not advised in advance of pleading guilty that the 1949 conviction would provide a predicate for a more severe sentence if he ever would, as indeed he did, commit another felony, for which he was sentenced in 1954. The rules set forth in People v Nixon are applicable (21 NY2d 338, 350, 353-356, cert den 393 US 1067).

Chief Judge Breitel and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg and Cooke concur.

Order affirmed in a memorandum.