People v. Chiera, 255 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). · Go Syfert
Search
People v. Chiera, 255 A.D.2d 685 (N.Y. App. Div. 1998). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
13 citation events (8 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Travis (nyappdiv, 2009-07-02)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Travis
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · confidence medium
People v Coston, 55 AD3d 943, 947 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 924 [2009]; People v Durant, 41 AD3d 976, 977 [2007]; People v Chiera, 255 AD2d 685, 685 [1998]; People v Dominique, 229 AD2d 719, 720-721 [1996], affd 90 NY2d 880 [1997]; People v Monette, 199 AD2d 589, 589 [1993]; People v Landes, 192 AD2d 1, 6 [1993], affd 84 NY2d 655 [1994]; People v Robinson, 174 AD2d 779, 779 [1991]; People v Baker, 156 AD2d 766, 766-767 [1989]; see also Donnino, Practice Commentary, McKinney’s Cons Laws of NY, Book 39, Penal Law § 60.27, 2008 Pocket Part, at 188).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Coston
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
Nonetheless, the matter must be remitted with regard to the manner of payment of the restitution award, as there is no evidence in the record that Supreme Court considered defendant’s ability to pay, as it is bound to do (see People v Chiera, 255 AD2d 685, 685 [1998]; People v Dominique, 229 AD2d 719, 720-721 [1996], affd 90 NY2d 880 [1997]; People v Monette, 199 AD2d 589 [1993]; People v Robinson, 174 AD2d 779 [1991]; see also Penal Law § 65.10 [2] [g]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Callender
N.Y. App. Div. · 2008 · confidence medium
However, inasmuch as this claim is premised on matters outside the present record, it is more properly the subject of a CPL article 440 motion (see People v Ponder, 43 AD3d 1398, 1400 [2007]; People v Chiera, 255 AD2d 685, 686 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Milazo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2006 · confidence medium
In any event, it is clear from a reading of the restitution order that County Court did consider defendant’s ability to pay by postponing any scheduled payments until defendant is released from prison (see People v Chiera, 255 AD2d 685, 685 [1998]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Aliseo
N.Y. App. Div. · 2005 · confidence medium
Finally, to the extent it can be reviewed on appeal (see People v Kim, supra at 412; People v Chiera, 255 AD2d 685, 686 [1998]), the defendant’s contention that he was denied the effective assistance of counsel at the restitution hearing is without merit.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Snitzel
N.Y. App. Div. · 2000 · confidence medium
To the extent that defendant’s contention is based on defense counsel’s failure to provide appropriate advice with respect to plea offers and to investigate defendant’s case, it is based upon information outside of the record and thus is not subject to review on direct appeal (see, People v Chiera, 255 AD2d 685, 686; People v Speed, 226 AD2d 1090, 1091 , lv denied 88 NY2d 969 ).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
J. Scott Chiera
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Nov 12, 1998.
255 A.D.2d 685
1998 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 11926
III.
Cited by 13 opinions  |  Published
Crew III, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Lamont, J.), rendered November 4, 1996 in Rensselaer County, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of burglary in the second degree.

Defendant, convicted upon his guilty plea of burglary in the second degree, was sentenced as a second violent felony offender to an indeterminate term of imprisonment of 5 to 10 years. As part of his sentence, defendant was ordered to make restitution in the amount of $108,000. Payment was to be effected by transfer of a 1980 Corvette automobile to the victimized homeowner and, upon release from prison, installment payments of $200 per month.

On this appeal, defendant contends, inter alia, that County Court failed to consider his ability to pay which, of course, the court was bound to do (see, People v Monette, 199 AD2d 589). We disagree. It is clear from a reading of the restitution order that County Court did consider defendant’s ability to pay, inasmuch as it ordered immediate transfer of the Corvette and postponed any scheduled payments until defendant was released from prison, a period during which defendant most assuredly would be unable to make any significant restitution.

[*686] Next, defendant contends that he was deprived of effective assistance of counsel with regard to the restitution hearing. Defendant asserts in his brief that counsel failed to fully investigate his version of the facts, interview witnesses, seek discovery of the victim’s financial records and sources of income,* submit relevant evidence and call appropriate witnesses to testify. We need only note that all of these matters are dehors the record. Accordingly, defendant’s only means of establishing such allegations is pursuant to a CPL article 440 motion. We have considered defendant’s remaining contentions and find them equally without merit.

Mikoll, J. P., White, Yesawich Jr. and Spain, JJ., concur. Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

It is questionable whether counsel could have accomplished this prior to the hearing inasmuch as there is no general constitutional or common-law right to discovery in criminal cases (see, Weatherford v Bursey, 429 US 545; People ex rel. Lemon v Supreme Ct., 245 NY 24). Rather, criminal discovery is a creature of the Legislature and is governed by the provisions of CPL article 240.