JONES, ROBERT L., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

JONES, ROBERT L., PEOPLE v

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 28, 2017

DocketKA 15-00166

StatusPublished

This text of JONES, ROBERT L., PEOPLE v (JONES, ROBERT L., PEOPLE v) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

JONES, ROBERT L., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

561 KA 15-00166 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT L. JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered October 2, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see People v Taggart, 124 AD3d 1362, 1362; see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver by its terms forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255; see generally People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). Although County Court failed to apprise defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive upon his conviction, “ ‘the requirement that a defendant be apprised of [the] maximum sentence in order for a waiver to be valid does not apply in a situation such as this[,] where there is a specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver’ ” (People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6 NY3d 852; see People v Brown, 115 AD3d 1204, 1206, lv denied 23 NY3d 1060).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

561 KA 15-00166 PRESENT: WHALEN, P.J., CARNI, NEMOYER, CURRAN, AND TROUTMAN, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ROBERT L. JONES, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

TIMOTHY P. DONAHER, PUBLIC DEFENDER, ROCHESTER (DAVID R. JUERGENS OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

SANDRA DOORLEY, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, ROCHESTER (STEPHEN X. O’BRIEN OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Monroe County Court (James J. Piampiano, J.), rendered October 2, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree (Penal Law § 265.03 [3]). Contrary to defendant’s contention, the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see People v Taggart, 124 AD3d 1362, 1362; see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), and that valid waiver by its terms forecloses any challenge by defendant to the severity of the sentence (see Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255; see generally People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737). Although County Court failed to apprise defendant of the maximum sentence he could receive upon his conviction, “ ‘the requirement that a defendant be apprised of [the] maximum sentence in order for a waiver to be valid does not apply in a situation such as this[,] where there is a specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver’ ” (People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6 NY3d 852; see People v Brown, 115 AD3d 1204, 1206, lv denied 23 NY3d 1060).

Entered: April 28, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

JONES, ROBERT L., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-robert-l-people-v-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack