People v. Ingram

2020 NY Slip Op 2653, 121 N.Y.S.3d 608, 183 A.D.3d 637
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 6, 2020
DocketInd. No. 1070/18
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 NY Slip Op 2653 (People v. Ingram) 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. Ingram, 2020 NY Slip Op 2653, 121 N.Y.S.3d 608, 183 A.D.3d 637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

People v Ingram (2020 NY Slip Op 02653)
People v Ingram
2020 NY Slip Op 02653
Decided on May 6, 2020
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 6, 2020 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
REINALDO E. RIVERA, J.P.
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
BETSY BARROS
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, JJ.

2018-11551
(Ind. No. 1070/18)

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

v

Alvin Ingram, appellant.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Emily T. Lurie of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Morgan J. Dennehy of counsel; Robert Ho on the memorandum), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Martin P. Murphy, J.), imposed July 18, 2018, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256). The Supreme Court's oral colloquy suggested that waiving the right to appeal was mandatory rather than a right the defendant was being asked to voluntarily relinquish (see People v Rivera, 171 AD3d 1097; People v Moncrieft, 168 AD3d 982). Moreover, the court failed to ascertain on the record whether the defendant read and understood the written waiver or discussed it with his counsel (see People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 139). Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

RIVERA, J.P., MALTESE, BARROS, BRATHWAITE NELSON and IANNACCI, 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. 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)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 NY Slip Op 2653, 121 N.Y.S.3d 608, 183 A.D.3d 637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-ingram-nyappdiv-2020.