People v. Otunyo

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Otunyo

142 A.D.3d 865, 37 N.Y.S.3d 875

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

DecidedSeptember 27, 2016

Docket1702 3505/12

StatusPublished

This text of 142 A.D.3d 865 (People v. Otunyo) 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. Otunyo, 142 A.D.3d 865, 37 N.Y.S.3d 875 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus,

J.), rendered May 23, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant had an opportunity to withdraw his plea, and since he was aware that his plea had immigration consequences, his present challenges to his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 381-383 [2015]; People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 183 [2013], cert denied 574 US —, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary in all respects.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim. Regardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Richter, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

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

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Michael J. Obus,

J.), rendered May 23, 2013, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of criminal possession of stolen property in the third degree, and sentencing him to a term of five years’ probation, unanimously affirmed.

Since defendant had an opportunity to withdraw his plea, and since he was aware that his plea had immigration consequences, his present challenges to his plea do not come within the narrow exception to the preservation requirement (see People v Conceicao, 26 NY3d 375, 381-383 [2015]; People v Peque, 22 NY3d 168, 183 [2013], cert denied 574 US —, 135 S Ct 90 [2014]), and we decline to review these unpreserved claims in the interest of justice. As an alternate holding, we find that the plea was knowing, intelligent and voluntary in all respects.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337, 341 [2015]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim. Regardless of whether defendant validly waived his right to appeal, we perceive no basis for reducing the sentence.

Concur — Friedman, J.R, Andrias, Richter, Gische and Kahn, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

142 A.D.3d 865, 37 N.Y.S.3d 875, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-otunyo-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack