People v. Joseph

114 A.D.3d 809, 980 N.Y.S.2d 270
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Joseph. Read the opinion of the Court — 103 A.D.3d 665

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (DiMango, J.), imposed October 2, 2012, 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 (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]; People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]) 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, PJ., Skelos, Leventhal and Sgroi, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Joseph, 114 A.D.3d 809, 980 N.Y.S.2d 270 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

114 A.D.3d 809 (People v. Joseph) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Bradshaw
961 N.E.2d 645 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Callahan
80 N.Y.2d 273 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)