KELLY, RAYNA A., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

KELLY, RAYNA A., PEOPLE v

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

DecidedJune 29, 2012

DocketKA 11-00415

StatusPublished

This text of KELLY, RAYNA A., PEOPLE v (KELLY, RAYNA A., 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

KELLY, RAYNA A., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

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

842 KA 11-00415 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RAYNA A. KELLY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SUSAN C. MINISTERO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered December 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (§ 165.45 [1]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence because Supreme Court failed to advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of incarceration (see People v Newman, 21 AD3d 1343; People v McLean, 302 AD2d 934; cf. People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737), and there was no specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver (cf. People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6 NY3d 852). Nevertheless, on the merits, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 29, 2012 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

842 KA 11-00415 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

RAYNA A. KELLY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (SUSAN C. MINISTERO OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (DONNA A. MILLING OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Russell P. Buscaglia, A.J.), rendered December 2, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of grand larceny in the fourth degree and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of grand larceny in the fourth degree (Penal Law § 155.30 [1]) and criminal possession of stolen property in the fourth degree (§ 165.45 [1]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence because Supreme Court failed to advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of incarceration (see People v Newman, 21 AD3d 1343; People v McLean, 302 AD2d 934; cf. People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737), and there was no specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver (cf. People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6 NY3d 852). Nevertheless, on the merits, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 29, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

KELLY, RAYNA A., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/kelly-rayna-a-people-v-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack