People v. Fields, 79 A.D.3d 1448 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Fields, 79 A.D.3d 1448 (N.Y. App. Div. 2010). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases · …and we decline defendant's invitation to take corrective action in the interest of justice at p. 1449 ⚠ not in text
12 citation events (12 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Kane (nyappdiv, 2024-11-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kane
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
"While we have previously held that substantial compliance with this statute is adequate when the defendant admits the prior felony and that errors or omissions in the statement may be waived by an admission by the defendant, we have also held that compliance with the statute is mandatory and that complete failure to file a second felony offender statement prior to sentencing renders the sentence invalid as a matter of law" ( People v Pierre , 8 AD3d 904, 906-907 [3d Dept 2004] [citations omitted], lv denied 3 NY3d 710 [2004]; see People v Traylor , 149 AD3d 626, 627 [1st Dept 2017]; People v …
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Fenner (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · confidence medium
In view of this, the resentence must be vacated and the matter remitted to County Court for resentencing (see People v Fields, 79 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010]; People v Farrow, 69 AD3d 980, 981 [2010]; People v Mosley, 54 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2008]; People v Anthony, 52 AD3d 864, 865 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]; People v Ruddy, 51 AD3d 1134, 1135 [2008], lv denied 12 NY3d 787 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Overton (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Accordingly, this is sue is unpreserved for our review (see People v Fields, 79 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010]; cf. People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]), “and we decline [defendant’s invitation] to take corrective action in the interest of justice” (People v Fields, 79 AD3d at 1449 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Overton (2×)
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Accordingly, this is sue is unpreserved for our review (see People v Fields, 79 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010]; cf. People v Young, 102 AD3d 1061, 1061 [2013]), “and we decline [defendant’s invitation] to take corrective action in the interest of justice” (People v Fields, 79 AD3d at 1449 [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]).
discussed Cited "see" MOSS, CURTIS, PEOPLE v
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence must be vacated because Supreme Court erred in sentencing defendant as a second violent felony offender, and “we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand” (People v Terry, 138 AD3d 1484, 1485 , lv denied 27 NY3d 1156 ; see People v Fields, 79 AD3d 1448, 1449 ).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Moss
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence must be vacated because Supreme Court erred in sentencing defendant as a second violent felony offender, and “we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand” (People v Terry, 138 AD3d 1484, 1485 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1156 [2016]; see People v Fields, 79 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010]).
discussed Cited "see" People v. Moss
N.Y. App. Div. · 2017 · signal: see · confidence high
Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence must be vacated because Supreme Court erred in sentencing defendant as a second violent felony offender, and “we cannot allow an illegal sentence to stand” (People v Terry, 138 AD3d 1484, 1485 [2016], lv denied 27 NY3d 1156 [2016]; see People v Fields, 79 AD3d 1448, 1449 [2010]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Charles M. Fields
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Dec 23, 2010.
79 A.D.3d 1448
Peters.
Cited by 8 opinions  |  Published
Peters, J.P.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Essex County (Meyer, J.), rendered February 20, 2007, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree.

In satisfaction of multiple indictments and other charges, defendant pleaded guilty to one count of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree and waived his right to appeal. The People and defendant jointly recommended that he[*1449] be sentenced to a prison term of 12 years to be followed by post-release supervision of five years, and the People further agreed not to request that he be sentenced as a persistent felony offender. County Court imposed the recommended sentence, and defendant now appeals.

Defendant claims that County Court improperly sentenced him as a second felony drug offender, and we agree. Initially, this argument implicates the legality of his sentence and, as such, survives his appeal waiver (see People v Glynn, 72 AD3d 1351, 1351-1352 [2010], lv denied 15 NY3d 773 [2010]; People v Mosley, 54 AD3d 1098, 1099 [2008]). The record does not reflect that the People filed a predicate felony statement prior to sentencing (see CPL 400.21 [2]; Penal Law § 70.71 [4] [b]), and they concede that defendant did not have “an opportunity to be heard with respect to . . . predicate sentencing” (People v Anthony, 52 AD3d 864, 865 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 733 [2008]). Indeed, defendant was not advised during the plea proceedings or thereafter that he was to be sentenced as a second felony drug offender, and County Court did not explicitly find him to be such an offender or sentence him as such (see CPL 400.21 [4]). As the provisions of CPL 400.21 were not substantially complied with, remittal is required so that defendant may be afforded adequate notice and an opportunity to be heard regarding his prior convictions prior to resentencing (see People v Farrow, 69 AD3d 980, 981 [2010]; People v Anthony, 52 AD3d at 865; People v Fields, 92 AD2d 749 [1983]).

Defendant’s assertion that his guilty plea was not knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily entered given County Court’s failure to correctly advise him of the maximum term of imprisonment he faced is unpreserved due to his failure to move to withdraw his plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Mayers, 74 NY2d 931, 932 [1989]; People v Campbell, 66 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2009]), and “we decline to take corrective action in the interest of justice” (People v Anthony, 52 AD3d at 865; cf. People v Bryant, 180 AD2d 874, 875-876 [1992]).

Rose, Lahtinen, Kavanagh and Egan Jr., JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the sentence imposed; matter remitted to the County Court of Essex County for further proceedings not inconsistent with this Court’s decision; and, as so modified, affirmed.