People v. Godfrey

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Godfrey

142 A.D.3d 1184, 37 N.Y.S.3d 903

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedSeptember 28, 2016

Docket2014-00547

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 1184 (People v. Godfrey) 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. Godfrey, 142 A.D.3d 1184, 37 N.Y.S.3d 903 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed December 11, 2013, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, as the record fails to establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 1004 [2013]). Thus, the waiver does not preclude review of this excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Cohen, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J.), imposed December 11, 2013, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, as the record fails to establish that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 1004 [2013]). Thus, the waiver does not preclude review of this excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Leventhal, Cohen, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 1184, 37 N.Y.S.3d 903, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-godfrey-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack