People v. Pimentel

212 A.D.3d 444, 179 N.Y.S.3d 574, 2023 NY Slip Op 00062
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedJanuary 10, 2023
DocketInd. No. 439/17 Appeal No. 17055 Case No. 2019-5296
StatusPublished

This text of 212 A.D.3d 444 (People v. Pimentel) 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. Pimentel, 212 A.D.3d 444, 179 N.Y.S.3d 574, 2023 NY Slip Op 00062 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2023).

Opinion

People v Pimentel (2023 NY Slip Op 00062)
People v Pimentel
2023 NY Slip Op 00062
Decided on January 10, 2023
Appellate Division, First 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 and Entered: January 10, 2023
Before: Acosta, P.J., Webber, Moulton, Shulman, Higgitt, JJ.

Ind. No. 439/17 Appeal No. 17055 Case No. 2019-5296

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

v

Angel Pimentel, Defendant-Appellant.


Twyla Carter, The Legal Aid Society, New York (Sarah Chaudhry of counsel), for appellant.

Darcel D. Clark, District Attorney, Bronx (Stephanie L. Nelson of counsel), for respondent.



Judgment, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Shari R. Michels, J.), rendered March 14, 2018, convicting defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3½ years, unanimously affirmed.

Defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545 [2019], cert denied 589 US —&mdash, 140 S Ct 2634 [2020]; People v Bryant, 28 NY3d 1094 [2016]), which forecloses review of his excessive sentence claim. In any event, we perceive no basis for reducing defendant's five-year term of postrelease supervision.

We decline to revisit this Court's prior order, which denied defendant's motion for disclosure of grand jury minutes. Defendant seeks access to these minutes for the

purpose of raising an evidentiary claim that would be foreclosed by his guilty plea (see People v Hansen, 95 NY2d 227, 230 [2000]), as well as his appeal waiver.THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER

OF THE SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.

ENTERED: January 10, 2023



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

Related

People v. Hansen
738 N.E.2d 773 (New York Court of Appeals, 2000)
People v. Bryant
68 N.E.3d 60 (New York Court of Appeals, 2016)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
212 A.D.3d 444, 179 N.Y.S.3d 574, 2023 NY Slip Op 00062, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pimentel-nyappdiv-2023.