People v. Cambridge

2019 NY Slip Op 615
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 30, 2019
DocketInd. No. 7701/16
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 615 (People v. Cambridge) 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. Cambridge, 2019 NY Slip Op 615 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People v Cambridge (2019 NY Slip Op 00615)
People v Cambridge
2019 NY Slip Op 00615
Decided on January 30, 2019
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 January 30, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
SYLVIA O. HINDS-RADIX
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2017-11852
(Ind. No. 7701/16)

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

v

Steven Cambridge, appellant.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Anjali Biala of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Victor Barall of counsel; Robert Ho on the memorandum), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Danny K. Chun, J.), imposed August 30, 2017, on the ground that the resentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

The defendant's waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, because the record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and the rights automatically forfeited by a plea of guilty (see People v Chevoy, 167 AD3d 768; People v Castillo, 159 AD3d 1016). Although the defendant executed a written waiver form, the Supreme Court never elicited from the defendant that he had read and understood the document before signing it (see People v Gomez, 166 AD3d 1006, 1007; People v Castillo, 159 AD3d 1016). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim. However, the resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

RIVERA, J.P., HINDS-RADIX, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 615, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cambridge-nyappdiv-2019.