People v. Peterson

119 A.D.3d 961, 989 N.Y.S.2d 896
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Peterson. Read the opinion of the Court — 111 A.D.3d 1412
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided July 30, 2014·No. 2011-03105·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the County Court, Suffolk County (Hinrichs, J., at plea; Condon, J., at sentence), imposed March 25, 2011, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Under the circumstances of this case, the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]; People v DeSimone, 80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the period of postrelease supervision imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, PJ., Rivera, Lott and Cohen, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Peterson, 119 A.D.3d 961, 989 N.Y.S.2d 896 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

119 A.D.3d 961 (People v. Peterson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

People v. Lopez
844 N.E.2d 1145 (New York Court of Appeals, 2006)
People v. Bradshaw
961 N.E.2d 645 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Callahan
80 N.Y.2d 273 (New York Court of Appeals, 1992)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)