People v. Morales, 248 A.D.2d 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
People v. Morales, 248 A.D.2d 257 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
3 citation events across 2 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: People v. Weiss (nyappdiv, 2012-10-18)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Weiss
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Since an objective reading of the plea bargain is susceptible to but one interpretation, defendant’s misunderstanding or subjective view of this aspect of the agreement is insufficient to demonstrate that her plea was unconstitutionally obtained (see People v Champion, 20 AD3d 772, 773 [2005]; People v James, 251 AD2d 813, 815 [1998]; People v Morales, 248 AD2d 257, 257 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 857 [1998]; People v Johns, 236 AD2d 748, 748 [1997]; People v Leggett, 163 AD2d 862, 863 [1990]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Weiss
N.Y. App. Div. · 2012 · confidence medium
Since an objective reading of the plea bargain is susceptible to but one interpretation, defendant’s misunderstanding or subjective view of this aspect of the agreement is insufficient to demonstrate that her plea was unconstitutionally obtained (see People v Champion, 20 AD3d 772, 773 [2005]; People v James, 251 AD2d 813, 815 [1998]; People v Morales, 248 AD2d 257, 257 [1998], lv denied 92 NY2d 857 [1998]; People v Johns, 236 AD2d 748, 748 [1997]; People v Leggett, 163 AD2d 862, 863 [1990]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Emilio Morales
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Mar 19, 1998.
248 A.D.2d 257
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2669
Andrias, Lerner, Nardelli, Rosenberger, Sullivan.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Leslie Crocker Snyder, J.), entered on or about March 15, 1996, which denied defendant’s motion, brought pursuant to CPL article 440, to set aside his sentence or vacate his judgment of conviction rendered November 20, 1990, unanimously affirmed.

Although, prior to defendant’s entry of his guilty plea, the court promised defendant that his instant sentence of 10 to 20 years would be served concurrently with the 12 V2 to 25 year sentence he was already serving, and the earlier sentence was subsequently reduced on appeal to 7V2 to 15 years, defendant is not entitled to a reduction of the instant sentence or vacatur of the plea. Measured by an objective reading of the bargain, the court kept its sentence promise notwithstanding defendant’s subjective interpretation of the bargain, under which he claims he was “implicitly” promised no additional punishment beyond the earlier sentence (see, People v Cataldo, 39 NY2d 578). Since the plea bargain here is susceptible of only one interpretation, we conclude that the court properly denied defendant’s motion without a hearing (supra).

Concur — Lerner, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Nardelli and Andrias, JJ.