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

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedAugust 29, 2006

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

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

Pincite

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 A.D.3d 543, 819 N.Y.S.2d 842, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-caleb-c-nyappdiv-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack