People v. Arriaza-Ortega

190 N.Y.S.3d 432, 216 A.D.3d 1175, 2023 NY Slip Op 02886
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 31, 2023
DocketInd. No. 164/20
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 190 N.Y.S.3d 432 (People v. Arriaza-Ortega) 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. Arriaza-Ortega, 190 N.Y.S.3d 432, 216 A.D.3d 1175, 2023 NY Slip Op 02886 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

People v Arriaza-Ortega (2023 NY Slip Op 02886)
People v Arriaza-Ortega
2023 NY Slip Op 02886
Decided on May 31, 2023
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 May 31, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2022-04025
(Ind. No. 164/20)

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

v

Jose Arriaza-Ortega, appellant.


James D. Licata, New City, NY (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.

Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Carrie A. Ciganek of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Kevin F. Russo, J.), rendered August 10, 2021, convicting him of assault in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal the excessiveness of the sentence imposed (see People v Moye, 164 AD3d 698, 698; People v Boswell, 35 AD3d 1218). During the plea allocution, the County Court expressly excluded a challenge to the excessiveness of the sentence imposed from the challenges foreclosed by the waiver of the right to appeal by telling the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal, with the exception of challenging the excessiveness of his sentence (see People v Moye, 164 AD3d at 698).

Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, MALTESE and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Guin
2024 NY Slip Op 03764 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2024)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
190 N.Y.S.3d 432, 216 A.D.3d 1175, 2023 NY Slip Op 02886, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-arriaza-ortega-nyappdiv-2023.