People v. Flores
This text of People v. Flores (People v. Flores) 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
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Flores
2026 NY Slip Op 01982
April 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Joseph Flores, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 70143/23)
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 1, 2026
2023-02527
Betsy Barros, J.P.
Lillian Wan
James P. Mccormack
Phillip Hom, JJ.
Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Joshua M. Levine of counsel), for appellant.
Michael E. McMahon, District Attorney, Staten Island, NY (Thomas B. Litsky and Nicole Kaye of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Richmond County (Lisa Grey, J.), rendered June 8, 2023, convicting him of attempted robbery in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 257; People v Hidalgo, 243 AD3d 677). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his challenges to the procedure used to adjudicate him a second felony offender (see People v Simpson, 244 AD3d 762).
To the extent the defendant contends that New York's predicate felony offender statutes are facially unconstitutional, that contention is not precluded by the appeal waiver (see People v Johnson, ___ NY3d ___, 2025 NY Slip Op 06528; People v Smith, 244 AD3d 1144). However, that contention is unpreserved for appellate review (see CPL 470.05[2]), and we decline to reach it in the exercise of our interest of justice jurisdiction (see People v Smith, 244 AD3d 1144).
The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Montano, 235 AD3d 1003).
BARROS, J.P., WAN, MCCORMACK and HOM, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court