People v. Peacock

188 N.Y.S.3d 717, 216 A.D.3d 1181, 2023 NY Slip Op 02894
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMay 31, 2023
DocketInd. No. 6102/18
StatusPublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 188 N.Y.S.3d 717 (People v. Peacock) 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. Peacock, 188 N.Y.S.3d 717, 216 A.D.3d 1181, 2023 NY Slip Op 02894 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

People v Peacock (2023 NY Slip Op 02894)
People v Peacock
2023 NY Slip Op 02894
Decided on May 31, 2023
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 May 31, 2023 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, J.P.
VALERIE BRATHWAITE NELSON
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2019-10325
(Ind. No. 6102/18)

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

v

Jayshawn Peacock, appellant.


Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Jean M. Joyce of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Laura R. Johnson, J.), rendered August 21, 2019, convicting him of assault in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is modified, on the law and as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by vacating the imposition of mandatory surcharges and fees; as so modified, 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 255-256; People v Washington, 214 AD3d 910).

As consented to by the People, we modify the judgment by vacating the mandatory surcharges and fees imposed on the defendant at sentencing (see CPL 420.35[2-a][c]; People v Reeves, 203 AD3d 1181; People v Dickerson, 201 AD3d 731).

CONNOLLY, J.P., BRATHWAITE NELSON, MALTESE and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Maria T. Fasulo

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Bynum (Tyreik)
2025 NY Slip Op 50633(U) (Appellate Terms of the Supreme Court of New York, 2025)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
188 N.Y.S.3d 717, 216 A.D.3d 1181, 2023 NY Slip Op 02894, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-peacock-nyappdiv-2023.