People v. Jefferson

104 A.D.3d 875, 960 N.Y.S.2d 655

This text of 104 A.D.3d 875 (People v. Jefferson) 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. Jefferson, 104 A.D.3d 875, 960 N.Y.S.2d 655 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2013).

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Condon, J.), imposed August 22, 2011, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, including the defendant’s “ ‘age, experience and background’ ” (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011] [emphasis omitted], quoting People v Seaberg, 74 NY2d 1, 11 [1989]), the defendant validly waived his right to appeal (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 254-255 [2006]; People v Panlall, 4 AD3d 540, 541 [2004]; cf. People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257 [2011]). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at 264-267; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255). Mastro, J.P., Skelos, Roman and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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. Ramos
853 N.E.2d 222 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Bradshaw
961 N.E.2d 645 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Seaberg
541 N.E.2d 1022 (New York Court of Appeals, 1989)
People v. Panlall
4 A.D.3d 540 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
104 A.D.3d 875, 960 N.Y.S.2d 655, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-jefferson-nyappdiv-2013.