People v. Cuevas

2026 NY Slip Op 00102

• Court: Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
• Decided: January 13, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

People v Cuevas (2026 NY Slip Op 00102)

People v Cuevas

2026 NY Slip Op 00102

Decided on January 13, 2026

Appellate Division, First 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 and Entered: January 13, 2026
Before: Kern, J.P., Kennedy, Higgitt, O'Neill Levy, Chan, JJ.

Ind. No. 74271/22 SCI Nos. 72111/23, 72112/23|Appeal No. 5559-5559A|Case No. 2023-05115|

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

v

Julio Cuevas, Appellant.

Jenay Nurse Guilford, Center for Appellate Litigation, New York (Abigail Everett of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Connor S. Glendinning of counsel), for respondent.

Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Judith S. Lieb, J.), rendered September 18, 2023, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of three counts of burglary in the third degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent terms of 3 to 6 years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant validly waived his right to appeal under the "totality of the circumstances" (People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 559 [2019], cert denied 589 US —, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]). The appeal waiver was valid even though "neither the oral colloquy nor the written waiver advised defendant of his right to counsel on appeal" concerning the claims which would survive a written waiver, as "the court did not imply that by waiving appeal, defendant would forfeit his right to appellate counsel for claims that survived the waiver" (People v Santiago 242 AD3d 519, 520 [1st Dept 2025] [citations omitted]).

Defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim (id.). In any event, we perceive no basis to reduce defendant's sentence. Defendant's ineffective assistance of counsel claim is unreviewable on direct appeal because it involves matters outside of the record (see e.g. People v McCray, 165 AD3d 595, 597 [1st Dept 2018], lv denied 32 NY3d 1175 [2019]).

THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: January 13, 2026