People v. D'Amico

2021 NY Slip Op 02817, 194 A.D.3d 742, 143 N.Y.S.3d 564
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 5, 2021
DocketInd. No. 124/17
StatusPublished

This text of 2021 NY Slip Op 02817 (People v. D'Amico) 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. D'Amico, 2021 NY Slip Op 02817, 194 A.D.3d 742, 143 N.Y.S.3d 564 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2021).

Opinion

People v D'Amico (2021 NY Slip Op 02817)
People v D'Amico
2021 NY Slip Op 02817
Decided on May 5, 2021
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 May 5, 2021 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
HECTOR D. LASALLE
PAUL WOOTEN, JJ.

2019-02992
(Ind. No. 124/17)

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

v

Charles D'Amico, appellant.


Thomas N. N. Angell, Poughkeepsie, NY (Jennifer Burton of counsel), for appellant.

William V. Grady, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Kirsten A. Rappleyea of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered March 11, 2019, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's contention that the County Court violated his right to equal protection, and that such violation affected the voluntariness of his plea, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Russo, 85 NY2d 872, 874; People v Cesar, 131 AD3d 223, 227) and, in any event, without merit.

Under the negotiated terms of the defendant's waiver of the right to appeal, the defendant expressly preserved his right to appeal the excessiveness of his sentence. Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80, 85-86). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his remaining contentions (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 565; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133).

CHAMBERS, J.P., AUSTIN, LASALLE and WOOTEN, 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. Russo
649 N.E.2d 1195 (New York Court of Appeals, 1995)
People v. Brown
122 A.D.3d 133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)
People v. Cesar
131 A.D.3d 223 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2021 NY Slip Op 02817, 194 A.D.3d 742, 143 N.Y.S.3d 564, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-damico-nyappdiv-2021.