People v. Alcides P.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Alcides P.

2016 NY Slip Op 8094, 144 A.D.3d 1178, 41 N.Y.S.3d 430

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

DecidedNovember 30, 2016

Docket2015-01727

StatusPublished

This text of 2016 NY Slip Op 8094 (People v. Alcides P.) 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. Alcides P., 2016 NY Slip Op 8094, 144 A.D.3d 1178, 41 N.Y.S.3d 430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), rendered February 3, 2015, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Walsh, J.) upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, on the ground that the amended sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, as the record fails to establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 1004 [2013]). Thus, the waiver does not preclude review of this excessive sentence claim. However, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by directing that the amended sentence run consecutively to the sentence that was imposed for the defendant’s subsequent conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (see generally People v Brown, 80 NY2d 361 [1992]; People v Sibert, 127 AD3d 1112 [2015]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Hall, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), rendered February 3, 2015, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Walsh, J.) upon a finding that he violated conditions thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, on the ground that the amended sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, as the record fails to establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 1004 [2013]). Thus, the waiver does not preclude review of this excessive sentence claim. However, under the circumstances, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion by directing that the amended sentence run consecutively to the sentence that was imposed for the defendant’s subsequent conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree (see generally People v Brown, 80 NY2d 361 [1992]; People v Sibert, 127 AD3d 1112 [2015]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Hall, Sgroi and Miller, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 NY Slip Op 8094, 144 A.D.3d 1178, 41 N.Y.S.3d 430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-alcides-p-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack