People v. Bennett

Nov 2, 2016
2011-03937
Reporters:
, , ,
Before:
Austin

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that his plea of guilty was not knowing, voluntary, and intelligent because the Supreme Court impliedly promised that he would be admitted to a temporary release program. Contrary to the defendant‘s contention, the record establishes that neither the defendant‘s eligibility for a temporary release program nor his admission into such a program was a condition of the plea (see People v Whitty, 140 AD3d 802 [2016]; People v Demick, 138 AD3d 1486 [2016]; People v Williams, 84 AD3d 1417, 1418 [2011]; see generally People v Ballato, 128 AD3d 846, 847 [2015]).

The defendant‘s remaining contention is without merit.

Austin, J.P., Cohen, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.