People v. Wilks, 284 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). · Go Syfert
People v. Wilks, 284 A.D.2d 905 (N.Y. App. Div. 2001). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
5 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Christie (nyappdiv, 2001-07-03)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "see" People v. Christie
N.Y. App. Div. · 2001 · signal: see · confidence high
Further, we note that the permanent order of protection must be amended by limiting its duration to “three years from the date of the expiration of the maximum term of [the] indeterminate * * * sentence of imprisonment actually imposed” (CPL 530.13 [4] [ii]; see, People v Wilks, 284 AD2d 905 ; People v Gibbons, 270 AD2d 937, 938 ), taking into account any jail time credit to which defendant is entitled (see, Penal Law § 70.30 [3]; People v Harris, 285 AD2d 980 [decided herewith]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Adams
N.Y. App. Div. · 2009 · signal: see also · confidence low
Indeed, Penal Law § 60.35 (1) (a) provides that a DNA databank fee shall be levied at sentencing “in addition to any sentence required or permitted by law.” We agree with defendant, however, that the order of protection must be amended by limiting its duration to “eight years from the date of the expiration of the maximum term of [the] . . . sentence of imprisonment actually imposed” (CPL 530.13 [former (4) (ii)]), taking into account any jail time credit to which defendant is entitled (see People v Holmes, 294 AD2d 871 [2002], lv denied 98 NY2d 730 [2002]; People v Viehdeffer, 288 AD…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Daniel H. Wilks
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 8, 2001.
284 A.D.2d 905
2001 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 5930
Cited by 5 opinions  |  Published

—Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of sexual abuse in the first degree (Penal Law § 130.65 [3] [child less than 11 years old]), defendant contends that County Court erred in enhancing his sentence without affording him the opportunity tó withdraw his guilty plea; that the sentence is unduly harsh or severe; and that the permanent order of protection impermissibly extends more than three years beyond the maximum expiration date of defendant’s term of incarceration.

The evidence at the Outley hearing (see, People v Outley, 80 NY2d 702) established that defendant knowingly violated a written “Release Under Supervision Contract” requiring defendant to stay away from “places where children congregate.” The court thus properly imposed an enhanced sentence without affording defendant the opportunity to withdraw his plea (see, People v Schaeffer, 254 AD2d 33, lv denied 92 NY2d 1053; see generally, People v Outley, supra, at 712-714). The sentence imposed, a five-year determinate term of incarceration and a three-year period of post-release supervision (see, Penal Law § 70.45 [2]), is not unduly harsh or severe (cf., People v Nunez, 267 AD2d 1050, 1051, lv denied 94 NY2d 905). The order of protection must be amended, however, by limiting the duration of the permanent order of protection to three years following the maximum expiration date of the “determinate sentence of imprisonment actually imposed” (CPL 530.13 [4]; see, People v Gibbons, 270 AD2d 937, 938; People v Nunez, supra, at 1051). (Appeal from Judgment of Genesee County Court, Noonan, J. — Sexual Abuse, 1st Degree.) Present — Pigott, Jr., P. J., Wisner, Scudder, Kehoe and Burns, JJ.