People v. Latouche

2025 NY Slip Op 06185
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 12, 2025
Docket2023-01298
StatusPublished

This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 06185 (People v. Latouche) 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. Latouche, 2025 NY Slip Op 06185 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2025).

Opinion

People v Latouche (2025 NY Slip Op 06185)

People v Latouche
2025 NY Slip Op 06185
Decided on November 12, 2025
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 November 12, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ANGELA G. IANNACCI, J.P.
LARA J. GENOVESI
CARL J. LANDICINO
LAURENCE L. LOVE, JJ.

2023-01298

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

v

Ashton A. Latouche, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 144/2022)


Steven A. Feldman, Manhasset, NY, for appellant.

Anthony P. Parisi, District Attorney, Poughkeepsie, NY (Winter A. Vega of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered January 23, 2023, convicting him of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree and criminal possession of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255).

The defendant's remaining contention, challenging the imposition of a civil forfeiture of certain items and currency, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Coleman, 138 AD3d

1014, 1015) and, in any event, without merit (see id.; cf. People v Carmichael, 123 AD3d 1053).

IANNACCI, J.P., GENOVESI, LANDICINO and LOVE, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Darrell M. Joseph

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. Carmichael
123 A.D.3d 1053 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Coleman
138 A.D.3d 1014 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 NY Slip Op 06185, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-latouche-nyappdiv-2025.