People v. Aisewomhonio

131 A.D.3d 1177, 16 N.Y.S.3d 7641
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 23, 2015
Docket2010-08266
StatusPublished
Cited by9 cases

This text of 131 A.D.3d 1177 (People v. Aisewomhonio) 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
People v. Aisewomhonio, 131 A.D.3d 1177, 16 N.Y.S.3d 7641 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed July 21, 2010, upon his conviction for violation of probation, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a definite term of one year of imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the term of imprisonment from one year to 364 days.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]) and, thus, does not *1178 preclude him from seeking a reduction of his sentence in the interest of justice.

Since the defendant has served his one-year term of imprisonment, the question of whether the one-year sentence should be reduced would ordinarily be academic (see People v Nicholson, 31 AD3d 468 [2006]). However, because the one-year sentence may have potential immigration consequences (see People v Cardenas, 123 AD3d 940 [2014]; People v Bakare, 280 AD2d 679 [2001]; People v Cuaran, 261 AD2d 169 [1999]), the question of whether the sentence should be reduced is not academic (see People v Cardenas, 123 AD3d 940 [2014]; Matter of Jonathan E., 119 AD3d 943 [2014]).

Considering all the relevant circumstances of this case, including the potential immigration consequences to the defendant, we conclude that his sentence should be reduced by one day (see People v Weston, 98 AD3d 1066, 1067 [2012]; People v Bakare, 280 AD2d 679 [2001]; People v Cuaran, 261 AD2d 169 [1999]; cf. People v Serrano, 129 AD3d 997 [2015]).

Eng, P.J., Rivera, Hall, Austin and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

Related

People v. Joseph
2020 NY Slip Op 05928 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Janvier
2020 NY Slip Op 04861 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Bakayoko
2019 NY Slip Op 5677 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2019)
People v. Broderick
2018 NY Slip Op 6930 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Tlahuel (Victor)
Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018
People v. Cortez
2018 NY Slip Op 2644 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Scott
2017 NY Slip Op 9174 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Ayala
142 A.D.3d 1095 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)
People v. Moore
141 A.D.3d 604 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
131 A.D.3d 1177, 16 N.Y.S.3d 7641, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-aisewomhonio-nyappdiv-2015.