People v. Newman, 99 A.D.3d 1107 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Newman, 99 A.D.3d 1107 (N.Y. App. Div. 2012). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
10 citation events (10 in the last 25 years) across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Woods (nyappdiv, 2018-11-21)
Top citers, strongest first. 7 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Woods
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · confidence medium
Defendant's further contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel by his initial defense counsel is unpreserved for appellate review as the record fails to disclose that he made an appropriate postallocution motion to withdraw his plea, despite having had an adequate amount of time to do so ( see CPL 220.60 [3]; People v Williams , 27 NY3d 212, 214 [2016]; People v Decker , 159 AD3d 1190 , 1192 [2018], lv denied 31 NY3d 1116 [2018]; People v Schreiner , 140 AD3d 1399, 1399 [2016]; People v Newman , 99 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Feliciano
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Nonetheless, even assuming, arguendo, that these “ineffective assistance of counsel claim[s] impact[ ] upon the voluntariness of [defendant’s] plea . . . , this issue is — absent record evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion — unpreserved for our review” (People v Lazore, 102 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2013]; see People v Walton, 101 AD3d 1489 , 1490 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1105 [2013]; People v Newman, 99 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Feliciano
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Nonetheless, even assuming, arguendo, that these “ineffective assistance of counsel claim[s] impact[ ] upon the voluntariness of [defendant’s] plea . . . , this issue is — absent record evidence of an appropriate postallocution motion — unpreserved for our review” (People v Lazore, 102 AD3d 1017, 1017-1018 [2013]; see People v Walton, 101 AD3d 1489 , 1490 [2012], lv denied 20 NY3d 1105 [2013]; People v Newman, 99 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2012]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kidd
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s argument, that omission did not render his plea involuntary because County Court made no commitment as to the length of the conditional discharge to be imposed (see People v Newman, 99 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2012]; People v Cullen, 62 AD3d 1155, 1156-1157 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Kidd
N.Y. App. Div. · 2013 · confidence medium
Contrary to defendant’s argument, that omission did not render his plea involuntary because County Court made no commitment as to the length of the conditional discharge to be imposed (see People v Newman, 99 AD3d 1107, 1108 [2012]; People v Cullen, 62 AD3d 1155, 1156-1157 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009]).
cited Cited "see" Newman v. Annucci
N.D.N.Y. · 2022 · signal: see · confidence high
See People v. Newman, 99 A.D.3d 1107 (2012).
cited Cited "see, e.g." John H. Newman, Jr. v. Tina Stanford, Chairwoman, Board of Parole
N.D.N.Y. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence low
Id; see also People v. Newman, 99 A.D.3d 1107 , 1108 (2012).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
John H. Newman Jr.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Oct 25, 2012.
99 A.D.3d 1107
Stein.
Cited by 7 opinions  |  Published
Stein, J.

While on probation, defendant was charged by indictment with two counts of rape in the third degree and one count of criminal sexual act in the third degree. Defendant pleaded guilty to the indictment and the probation violation the day before his trial was set to commence. The following day, County Court engaged in further colloquy with defendant to advise him that there would be a term of postrelease supervision included in any sentence imposed. Defendant affirmed his understanding of postrelease supervision and expressed his continued desire to plead guilty. County Court thereafter sentenced defendant to concurrent terms of 21/2 years in prison plus 10 years of post-release supervision on each of the indicted charges, as well as a consecutive term of three years in prison plus three years of postrelease supervision on the probation violation. Defendant now appeals and we affirm.

We reject defendant’s contention that he was not afforded an opportunity to withdraw his plea after County Court initially failed to inform him of the period of postrelease supervision. Under the facts of this case, we find that County Court satisfied its obligation to ensure that defendant had a full understanding of the consequences of the plea, including postrelease supervision, and that defendant’s plea was knowing and voluntary (see People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 244-245 [2005]; People v Cullen, 62 AD3d 1155, 1156-1157 [2009], lv denied 13 NY3d 795 [2009]; People v Brunelle, 47 AD3d 1067, 1067 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 786 [2008]; compare People v Thomas, 68 AD3d 1445, 1446-1447 [2009]). Defendant’s remaining contention, that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel, is not preserved for our review as the record before us fails to indicate that defendant moved to withdraw his plea or vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Cassara, 88 AD3d 1069, 1069 [2011], lv denied 18 NY3d 956 [2012]; People v Mercer, 81 AD3d 1159, 1159 [2011], lv denied 19 NY3d 999 [2012]; People v Bolden, 78 AD3d 1419, 1420 [2010], lv denied 16 NY3d 828 [2011]).

Rose, J.P., Spain, Kavanagh and McCarthy, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.