People v. Georges

2017 NY Slip Op 5129, 151 A.D.3d 1402, 54 N.Y.S.3d 337
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJune 22, 2017
Docket107891
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 5129 (People v. Georges) 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. Georges, 2017 NY Slip Op 5129, 151 A.D.3d 1402, 54 N.Y.S.3d 337 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

Aarons, J.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Schenectady County (Loyola, J.), rendered July 22, 2015, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree.

In satisfaction of an eight-count indictment, defendant pleaded guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree and waived his right to appeal, both orally *1403 and in writing. In accordance with the terms of the plea agreement, he was sentenced as a second felony offender to four years in prison and three years of postrelease supervision. He now appeals.

As an initial matter, we agree with defendant that his appeal waiver was invalid inasmuch as the record reveals that defendant was not advised that the right to appeal was separate and distinct from the other rights that he was forfeiting by pleading guilty (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Herbert, 147 AD3d 1208, 1208 [2017]; People v Lloyd, 142 AD3d 1250, 1251 [2016], lv denied 28 NY3d 1073 [2016]). Defendant is therefore not precluded from challenging the severity of the imposed sentence (see People v Cox, 146 AD3d 1154, 1155 [2017]; People v Maxwell, 142 AD3d 739, 740 [2016]). We nevertheless find this challenge to be without merit. In view of defendant’s multiple prior drug-related convictions, we discern no extraordinary circumstances nor any abuse of discretion warranting a reduction of the sentence in the interest of justice (see People v Slamp, 145 AD3d 1320, 1321 [2016]; People v Lloyd, 142 AD3d at 1251).

Peters, P.J., Garry, Devine and Mulvey, JJ., concur.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

People v. Waterman
2018 NY Slip Op 6294 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Johnson
2018 NY Slip Op 1680 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2018)
People v. Clarke
2017 NY Slip Op 8044 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2017 NY Slip Op 5129, 151 A.D.3d 1402, 54 N.Y.S.3d 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-georges-nyappdiv-2017.