People v. Hatcher

2018 NY Slip Op 6560
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedOctober 3, 2018
Docket2016-08803
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 6560 (People v. Hatcher) 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. Hatcher, 2018 NY Slip Op 6560 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Hatcher (2018 NY Slip Op 06560)
People v Hatcher
2018 NY Slip Op 06560
Decided on October 3, 2018
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 October 3, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
JEFFREY A. COHEN
BETSY BARROS, JJ.

2016-08803
(Ind. No. 776/15)

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

v

Jonte L. Hatcher, appellant.


Laurette D. Mulry, Riverhead, NY (Alfred J. Cicale of counsel), for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Timothy P. Finnerty of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a resentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Richard Ambro, J.), imposed June 29, 2016, on the ground that the resentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the resentence is affirmed.

Under the circumstances, the defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal during the plea proceeding (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255; People v Dietz, 152 AD3d 717; People v Oldham, 146 AD3d 985) does not preclude appellate review of his contention that the resentence imposed was excessive inasmuch as he entered the plea under conditions that changed following the waiver (see People v Tausinger, 21 AD3d 1181, 1183; see also People v Johnson, 14 NY3d 483, 487). Nevertheless, the record reveals that the defendant received a more favorable term of imprisonment upon resentencing and that the resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RIVERA, AUSTIN, COHEN and BARROS, 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. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Johnson
929 N.E.2d 361 (New York Court of Appeals, 2010)
People v. Oldham
2017 NY Slip Op 489 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Dietz
2017 NY Slip Op 5749 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Bradshaw
961 N.E.2d 645 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Tausinger
21 A.D.3d 1181 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2005)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 6560, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-hatcher-nyappdiv-2018.