People v. Archer
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 03582 (People v. Archer) 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.
Opinion
| People v Archer |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 03582 |
| Decided on June 11, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second Department |
| Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431. |
| This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports. |
Decided on June 11, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
HECTOR D. LASALLE, P.J.
MARK C. DILLON
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
CARL J. LANDICINO, JJ.
2021-06339
2021-06636
(Ind. No. 382/19; S.C.I. No. 33/21)
v
Vladimir Archer, appellant.
Alex Smith, Middletown, NY, for appellant.
Brian P. Conaty, Special District Attorney, Monticello, NY (Danielle K. Blackaby of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant from two judgments of the County Court, Orange County (Hyun Chin Kim, J., at pleas; William L. DeProspo, J., at sentences), both rendered July 15, 2021, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree and criminal sexual act in the first degree under Indictment No. 382/19, and use of a child in a sexual performance and possession of a sexual performance by a child under Superior Court Information No. 33/21, upon his pleas of guilty, and imposing sentences.
ORDERED that the judgments are affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentences imposed were excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255), as well as his contention that the sentences violated his constitutional rights against cruel and unusual punishment (see People v Escobargarcia, 237 AD3d 1221, 1222; People v Yakubov, 204 AD3d 1043, 1044).
The defendant's remaining contention is unpreserved for appellate review and, in any event, without merit.
LASALLE, P.J., DILLON, CHRISTOPHER and LANDICINO, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 03582, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-archer-nyappdiv-2025.