People v. Banchs

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Banchs

22 A.D.3d 595, 801 N.Y.S.2d 760

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided October 11, 2005·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), imposed August 20, 2003, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Under the circumstances, the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal did not encompass a challenge to his sentence (see People v Thomas, 272 AD2d 985, 985-986 [2000]; People v Shea, 254 AD2d 512, 513 [1998]; cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Crane, Ritter and Fisher, 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 a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (D’Emic, J.), imposed August 20, 2003, on the ground that the sentence is excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Under the circumstances, the defendant’s waiver of the right to appeal did not encompass a challenge to his sentence (see People v Thomas, 272 AD2d 985, 985-986 [2000]; People v Shea, 254 AD2d 512, 513 [1998]; cf. People v Catu, 4 NY3d 242, 245 [2005]; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737 [1998]). Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Prudenti, P.J., H. Miller, Crane, Ritter and Fisher, JJ., concur.

People v. Banchs, 22 A.D.3d 595, 801 N.Y.S.2d 760 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2005).

Pincite

22 A.D.3d 595 (People v. Banchs) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related