People v. MacFarlane

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. MacFarlane

140 A.D.3d 1089, 33 N.Y.S.3d 738

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedJune 22, 2016

Docket2014-01551

StatusPublished

This text of 140 A.D.3d 1089 (People v. MacFarlane) 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. MacFarlane, 140 A.D.3d 1089, 33 N.Y.S.3d 738 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), rendered January 14, 2014, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*1090 Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive and those contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief, except for the contention, in effect, concerning the legality of his sentence (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]).

To the extent that the defendant claims in his pro se supplemental brief that the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum allowable sentence for manslaughter in the first degree, such claim is without merit (see Penal Law §§ 70.00 [2] [a]; [3] [a] [i]; 70.45 [2] [f]).

Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

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

— Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), rendered January 14, 2014, convicting him of manslaughter in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

*1090 Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the record demonstrates that he knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 340-341 [2015]). The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive and those contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief, except for the contention, in effect, concerning the legality of his sentence (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255-256 [2006]).

To the extent that the defendant claims in his pro se supplemental brief that the sentence imposed exceeded the maximum allowable sentence for manslaughter in the first degree, such claim is without merit (see Penal Law §§ 70.00 [2] [a]; [3] [a] [i]; 70.45 [2] [f]).

Mastro, J.P., Dickerson, Austin and Roman, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

140 A.D.3d 1089, 33 N.Y.S.3d 738, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-macfarlane-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack