People v. Jagroo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Jagroo

123 A.D.3d 945, 996 N.Y.S.2d 924

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided December 17, 2014·No. 2012-05695·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Holder, J.), imposed May 23, 2012, upon his conviction of burglary in the first degree, 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 the right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Hall, Miller and LaSalle, 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, Queens County (Holder, J.), imposed May 23, 2012, upon his conviction of burglary in the first degree, 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 the right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133 [2014]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Mastro, Hall, Miller and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

People v. Jagroo, 123 A.D.3d 945, 996 N.Y.S.2d 924 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

123 A.D.3d 945 (People v. Jagroo) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related