People v. Arenas

2025 NY Slip Op 03732
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 18, 2025
DocketInd. No. 70284/19
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 03732 (People v. Arenas) 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. Arenas, 2025 NY Slip Op 03732 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

People v Arenas (2025 NY Slip Op 03732)
People v Arenas
2025 NY Slip Op 03732
Decided on June 18, 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 18, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
COLLEEN D. DUFFY, J.P.
ROBERT J. MILLER
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
LILLIAN WAN, JJ.

2022-08840
(Ind. No. 70284/19)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Jeffrey Arenas, appellant. Benjamin Greenwald, Middletown, NY, for appellant.


David M. Hoovler, District Attorney, Goshen, NY (Andrew R. Kass of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Orange County (William L. DeProspo, J.), rendered October 25, 2022, convicting him of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was convicted of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree (Penal Law § 220.16[1]), upon his plea of guilty, and the County Court sentenced him to a determinate term of imprisonment of eight years, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision.

The defendant's sole contention on appeal is that the sentence imposed was excessive. However, the record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). Thus, appellate review of the defendant's contention that his sentence was excessive is precluded by the valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Eastman, 234 AD3d 985, 986; People v Todarello, 185 AD3d 970, 970-971).

DUFFY, J.P., MILLER, CHRISTOPHER and WAN, 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

People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Todarello
2020 NY Slip Op 4190 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2020)
People v. Bradshaw
961 N.E.2d 645 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 03732, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arenas-nyappdiv-2025.