People v. Palmer (Jose)

Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Palmer (Jose)

CourtAppellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York

DecidedDecember 13, 2019

Docket2019 NYSlipOp 52027(U)

StatusPublished

This text of People v. Palmer (Jose) (People v. Palmer (Jose)) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court 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. Palmer (Jose), (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jose Palmer, Appellant.

Appellate Advocates (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant. Queens County District Attorney (John M. Castellano and Johnnette Traill of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by the brief, from so much of a sentence of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Suzanne J. Melendez, J.), imposed November 1, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, as required defendant to complete three years of probation.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

Defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint charging him with grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35 [1]) and falsifying business records in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.10). The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendant had submitted false information in order to receive unemployment benefits, and that he had received in excess of $3,000 in such benefits while he had, in fact, been employed. After plea negotiations, defendant agreed to plead guilty to petit larceny in exchange for a promised sentence of paying $7,311.89 in restitution and completing three years of probation. The grand larceny charge was then reduced to petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25), the falsifying business records charge was dismissed, and defendant pleaded guilty to petit larceny. On November 1, 2016, defendant was sentenced as promised. On appeal, defendant, a 59-year-old substitute teacher, contends that his sentence of three years of probation was excessive given his age, lack of criminal history, depression and asthma, and because it exposes him to hardships related to future employment.

As defendant has completed his three-year term of probation, his appeal therefrom has [*2]been rendered academic (see People v Manning, 67 AD3d 1378, 1380 [2009]; People v Nicholson, 31 AD3d 468, 469 [2006]; People v Platchkov, 30 Misc 3d 133[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52354[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

Accordingly, the appeal from the sentence is dismissed.

PESCE, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 13, 2019

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

The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

against

Jose Palmer, Appellant.

Appellate Advocates (Dina Zloczower of counsel), for appellant. Queens County District Attorney (John M. Castellano and Johnnette Traill of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal by defendant, as limited by the brief, from so much of a sentence of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, Queens County (Suzanne J. Melendez, J.), imposed November 1, 2016, upon his plea of guilty, as required defendant to complete three years of probation.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed.

Defendant was arraigned on a felony complaint charging him with grand larceny in the third degree (Penal Law § 155.35 [1]) and falsifying business records in the first degree (Penal Law § 175.10). The complaint alleged, among other things, that defendant had submitted false information in order to receive unemployment benefits, and that he had received in excess of $3,000 in such benefits while he had, in fact, been employed. After plea negotiations, defendant agreed to plead guilty to petit larceny in exchange for a promised sentence of paying $7,311.89 in restitution and completing three years of probation. The grand larceny charge was then reduced to petit larceny (Penal Law § 155.25), the falsifying business records charge was dismissed, and defendant pleaded guilty to petit larceny. On November 1, 2016, defendant was sentenced as promised. On appeal, defendant, a 59-year-old substitute teacher, contends that his sentence of three years of probation was excessive given his age, lack of criminal history, depression and asthma, and because it exposes him to hardships related to future employment.

As defendant has completed his three-year term of probation, his appeal therefrom has [*2]been rendered academic (see People v Manning, 67 AD3d 1378, 1380 [2009]; People v Nicholson, 31 AD3d 468, 469 [2006]; People v Platchkov, 30 Misc 3d 133[A], 2010 NY Slip Op 52354[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]).

Accordingly, the appeal from the sentence is dismissed.

PESCE, P.J., ELLIOT and SIEGAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Paul Kenny

Chief Clerk
Decision Date: December 13, 2019

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

People v. Palmer (Jose), Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-palmer-jose-nyappterm-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack