You are here: / / PRE-SENTENCE INCARCERATION, AS PART OF A PLEA AGREEMENT, DID NOT RENDER...
,

PRE-SENTENCE INCARCERATION, AS PART OF A PLEA AGREEMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE ILLEGAL, THEREFORE OBJECTION TO SENTENCE WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; CRITERIA FOR OUTLEY HEARING EXPLAINED.

The Court of Appeals, over an extensive dissenting opinion, determined defendant failed to preserve an objection to his sentence because he did not move to withdraw his plea or otherwise object prior to the imposition of sentence. As part of a plea deal, defendant was required to complete six months in jail, followed by a period of time during which he was not arrested. Defendant completed the jail time but was subsequently arrested. Because of the arrest, the plea deal was not available and defendant was sentenced accordingly. The Court of Appeals held that the narrow exception to the preservation requirement for an illegal sentence did not apply to these facts. The jail-time was deemed to be a “pre-sentence” condition and could not, therefore, be deemed an illegal sentence. The court further explained the criterial for an Outley hearing to determine the validity of an arrest which violates a condition for a plea deal:

Here, defendant's sentence was premised on a violation of an admittedly lawful presentence condition – he could not be arrested – and the issue of the propriety of the plea could certainly have been raised prior to sentencing. Thus, defendant's challenge to the presentencing incarceration, which was not part of the sentence, is subject to the preservation rule … . * * *

[At the Outley hearing] the judge heard testimony from the complainant and the arresting officer. Defendant also testified that the complainant had been the aggressor and had attacked him. The judge found that there was a legitimate basis for defendant's arrest, implicitly rejecting defendant's version of events, and that finding was adopted by the sentencing court. Thus, because defendant was given an opportunity to testify to his exculpatory explanation, and his testimony was evidently discredited by the court, the nature of the inquiry was sufficient under our Outley standard. People v Reynolds, 2016 NY Slip Op 04323, CtApp 6-7-16

CRIMINAL LAW (PRE-SENTENCE INCARCERATION, AS PART OF A PLEA AGREEMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE ILLEGAL, THEREFORE OBJECTION TO SENTENCE WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; CRITERIA FOR OUTLEY HEARING EXPLAINED)/APPEALS (PRE-SENTENCE INCARCERATION, AS PART OF A PLEA AGREEMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE ILLEGAL, THEREFORE OBJECTION TO SENTENCE WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT)/SENTENCING (PRE-SENTENCE INCARCERATION, AS PART OF A PLEA AGREEMENT, DID NOT RENDER THE SUBSEQUENT SENTENCE ILLEGAL, THEREFORE OBJECTION TO SENTENCE WAS SUBJECT TO THE PRESERVATION REQUIREMENT; CRITERIA FOR OUTLEY HEARING EXPLAINED)/OUTLEY HEARING (CRITERIA FOR OUTLEY HEARING EXPLAINED)

You might also like
CPLR 3122 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE STATE COMPTROLLER TO ACQUIRE PATIENT AUTHORIZATIONS BEFORE SUBMITTING SUBPOENAS FOR MEDICAL RECORDS IN CONNECTION WITH AUDITS OF PRIVATE HEALTHCARE PROVIDERS (CT APP).
THE MAJORITY HELD SUPREME COURT PROPERLY ALLOWED PLAINTIFFS TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT AFTER THE COMPLAINT HAD BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION BECAUSE COUNTERCLAIMS WERE STILL BEFORE THE COURT (CT APP).
Proof of the Dog’s Emaciated Condition Supported Defendant’s Conviction of the Violation of Agriculture and Markets Law 353
THE RECORD SUPPORTED THE SUSPENSION OF PETITIONER BUS DRIVER’S LICENSE FOR CAUSING SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY TO A PEDESTRIAN WHILE FAILING TO EXERCISE DUE CARE; APPELLATE DIVISION REVERSED (CT APP).
PROCEDURE FOR DETERMINING WHETHER A PROSECUTOR’S INITIAL STATEMENT OF READINESS FOR TRIAL WAS ILLUSORY CLARIFIED.
THERE WAS AN INEXCUSABLE 28-HOUR DELAY BETWEEN DEFENDANT’S ARREST AND ARRAIGNMENT, BUT THE DELAY DID NOT RENDER THE CONFESSION INVOLUNTARILY GIVEN.
JUDGE MUST DECIDE WHETHER TO TREAT AN ELIGIBLE YOUTH AS A YOUTHFUL OFFENDER, EVEN WHEN THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT ASK THE JUDGE TO DO SO (CT APP)
Questions of Fact Raised About Whether Access to a Flat Roof through a Window and a Fall from the Roof Into an Unprotected Air Shaft Were Foreseeable

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

FAILURE TO RESPOND TO JURY NOTES AFTER COUNSEL HAD BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE CONTENTS... COURT’S FAILURE TO ORDER READBACK OF CROSS-EXAMINATION IN ADDITION TO...