People v. Borges, 103 A.D.3d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
People v. Borges, 103 A.D.3d 747 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 3 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Palladino
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention that his plea of guilty was not knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently entered is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Davis, 24 NY3d 1012, 1013 [2014]; People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 665 [1988]; see also People v Crowder, 24 NY3d 1134, 1136-1137 [2015]; People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Ullah, 130 AD3d 759, 760 [2015]; People v Brown, 107 AD3d 819 [2013]; People v Borges, 103 AD3d 747, 748 [2013]; cf. People v Turner, 24 NY3d 254, 258-259 [2014]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Harvey
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · confidence medium
As the defendant’s challenge to the voluntariness of his plea of guilty survives even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Innocent, 132 AD3d 696, 696 [2015]; People v Borges, 103 AD3d 747, 748 [2013]), we need not determine whether the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal was invalid.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Ullah
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The defendant’s contention is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant was made aware that he would be subject to a period of postrelease supervision at the outset of the resentencing proceeding, and nonetheless failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to the imposition of the resentence (see People v Crowder, 24 NY3d 1134, 1136-1137 [2015]; People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725, 726-727 [2010]; People v Brown, 107 AD3d 819 [2013]; People v Borges, 103 AD3d 747, 748 [2013]; People v Cohen, 82 AD3d 786 [2011]; see also People v Valerio, 110 AD3d 1015 [2013]; cf. People v Turner, 24 NY3d…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Shakim Borges
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Feb 13, 2013.
103 A.D.3d 747
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (J. Doyle, J.), rendered April 5, 2011, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the fifth degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

[*748] Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea was not knowingly, intelligently, or voluntarily entered because the County Court failed to advise him at the time of the plea that his sentence would include a period of postrelease supervision. Contrary to the People’s contention, a claim that a plea of guilty was not knowingly or voluntarily entered survives even a valid waiver of the right to appeal (see People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 10 [1989]; People v Tuffini, 101 AD3d 1053 [2012]). Nevertheless, the defendant’s contention is unpreserved for appellate review because the defendant was made aware of the postrelease supervision component of his sentence at the outset of the sentencing proceeding, and nonetheless failed to move to withdraw his plea prior to the imposition of sentence (see People v Murray, 15 NY3d 725 [2010]; cf. People v McAlpin, 17 NY3d 936, 938 [2011]; People v Louree, 8 NY3d 541, 545-546 [2007]). We decline to reach the issue in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction. Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Leventhal and Chambers, JJ., concur.