People v. Christie

2020 NY Slip Op 1075, 115 N.Y.S.3d 918, 180 A.D.3d 802

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: February 13, 2020
• Docket: Ind. No. 315/17
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Christie (2020 NY Slip Op 01075)

People v Christie

2020 NY Slip Op 01075

Decided on February 13, 2020

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 February 13, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
WILLIAM F. MASTRO, J.P.
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL
ROBERT J. MILLER
COLLEEN D. DUFFY
HECTOR D. LASALLE, JJ.

2018-08141
(Ind. No. 315/17)

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

v

Terel Christie, appellant.

Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Hannah Kon of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Diane R. Eisner of counsel; Isaac Belenkiy on the memorandum), for respondent.

DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (John T. Hecht, J.), imposed May 31, 2018, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

"[I]n the face of erroneous advisements warning of absolute bars to the pursuit of all potential remedies," the record does not establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (People v Thomas, ___ NY3d ___, 2019 NY Slip Op 08545, *7 [2019]; see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257). Thus, appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is not precluded by the purported waiver.

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

MASTRO, J.P., LEVENTHAL, MILLER, DUFFY and LASALLE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court