People v. Mendez
This text of People v. Mendez (People v. Mendez) 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.
Opinion
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Mendez
2026 NY Slip Op 01991
April 1, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Evelio Mendez, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 1, 2026
Lara J. Genovesi, J.P.
William G. Ford
Helen Voutsinas
Donna-Marie E. Golia, JJ.
James D. Licata, New City, NY (Lois Cappelletti of counsel), for appellant.
Thomas E. Walsh II, District Attorney, New City, NY (Melissa Fabi of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Rockland County (Anne B. Bianchi, J.), rendered June 18, 2024, convicting him of course of sexual conduct against a child in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid. The County Court's terse oral colloquy mischaracterized the nature of the appeal waiver as an absolute bar to the taking of a direct appeal by stating only that it was a waiver of the "right to appeal your conviction and sentence" (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Muhammad, 231 AD3d 868, 869). Accordingly, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (see People v Lawrence, 227 AD3d 829, 829; People v Richards, 224 AD3d 782, 783).
Nonetheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and GOLIA, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court