People v. Caleb C.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Caleb C.

32 A.D.3d 543, 819 N.Y.S.2d 842

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided August 29, 2006·Published·Cited by 6 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered December 22, 2004, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Ambrosio, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was incorrectly informed that he was not entitled to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive. Therefore the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Brown, 13 AD3d 548 [2004]; People v Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]). Accordingly, we have considered the defendant’s claim that the sentence was excessive, but find it to be without merit (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant from an amended judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Dowling, J.), rendered December 22, 2004, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Ambrosio, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, after a hearing, and imposing a sentence of imprisonment upon his previous conviction of attempted robbery in the second degree.

Ordered that the amended judgment is affirmed.

The defendant was incorrectly informed that he was not entitled to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive. Therefore the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Brown, 13 AD3d 548 [2004]; People v Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]). Accordingly, we have considered the defendant’s claim that the sentence was excessive, but find it to be without merit (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Florio, J.P., Santucci, Mastro, Rivera and Covello, JJ., concur.

People v. Caleb C., 32 A.D.3d 543, 819 N.Y.S.2d 842 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2006).

Pincite

32 A.D.3d 543 (People v. Caleb C.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related