People v. Pittman
This text of 48 A.D.3d 709 (People v. Pittman) 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.
Opinion
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Holdman, J.), imposed July 13, 2006, upon his conviction of criminal possession of a weapon in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, the sentence being a determinate term of imprisonment of seven years and a period of post-release supervision of three years.
Ordered that the sentence is modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the determinate term of imprisonment of 7 years to a determinate term of imprisonment of 3 years and by reducing the period of post-release supervision of 3 years to a period of post-release supervision of IV2 years.
The defendant was incorrectly informed, in a preprinted waiver form, that his right to appeal did not include the right to appellate review of his sentence on the ground that it was excessive (see People v Hurd, 44 AD3d 791, 792 [2007], lv denied 9 NY3d 1006 [2007]). Therefore, the purported waiver of his right to appeal cannot be considered knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Hale, 30 AD3d 613, 614 [2006]; People v Rose, 236 AD2d 637 [1997]; People v Rolon, 220 AD2d 543 [1995]).
In light of all of the circumstances of this case, the sentence imposed is excessive to the extent indicated herein (see People v Suitte, 90 AD 2d 80, 83-87 [1982]). Prudenti, EJ., Spolzino, Florio, Covello and Dickerson, JJ., concur.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
48 A.D.3d 709, 852 N.Y.S.2d 305, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-pittman-nyappdiv-2008.