People v. Cockrell
This text of 2026 NY Slip Op 00256 (People v. Cockrell) 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.
Opinion
| People v Cockrell |
| 2026 NY Slip Op 00256 |
| Decided on January 21, 2026 |
| 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 21, 2026 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
BETSY BARROS, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
DEBORAH A. DOWLING
CARL J. LANDICINO
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
2024-03373
2024-03376
2024-03379
v
Lavelle Cockrell, appellant. (Ind. Nos. 70693/21, 70694/21, 71083/21)
Martha Krisel, New York, NY, for appellant.
Anne T. Donnelly, District Attorney, Mineola, NY (Jason R. Richards and Francine R. Michel of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from three sentences of the County Court, Nassau County (Terence P. Murphy, J.), all imposed March 28, 2024, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.
ORDERED that the sentences are affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waivers of his right to appeal were invalid (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Vilmont, 216 AD3d 1113, 1114). Among other deficiencies, the County Court's colloquy failed to adequately advise the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal and suggested that the waivers may be an absolute bar to the taking of an appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d at 562-564; People v Muhammad, 231 AD3d 868, 869). Thus, the purported waivers of the right to appeal do not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claims (see People v Lawrence, 227 AD3d 829, 829; People v Richards, 224 AD3d 782, 783). Nonetheless, the sentences imposed were not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
BARROS, J.P., CHAMBERS, DOWLING, LANDICINO and HOM, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2026 NY Slip Op 00256, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-cockrell-nyappdiv-2026.