People v. Reillo

2018 NY Slip Op 6271
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedSeptember 26, 2018
Docket2013-08719
StatusPublished

This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 6271 (People v. Reillo) 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. Reillo, 2018 NY Slip Op 6271 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2018).

Opinion

People v Reillo (2018 NY Slip Op 06271)
People v Reillo
2018 NY Slip Op 06271
Decided on September 26, 2018
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 September 26, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, J.P.
LEONARD B. AUSTIN
JEFFREY A. COHEN
BETSY BARROS
LINDA CHRISTOPHER, JJ.

2013-08719
(Ind. No. 4832/11)

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

v

Joey Reillo, appellant.


Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Lynn W. L. Fahey of counsel), for appellant.

Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Anthea H. Bruffee of counsel; Avery Heisler on the memorandum), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Neil Jon Firetog, J.), imposed March 8, 2013, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264; People v Little, 127 AD3d 1235, 1235-1236; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 137). The record does not demonstrate that the defendant understood the distinction between the right to appeal and the other trial rights that are forfeited incident to a plea of guilty (see People v Kupershmidt, 152 AD3d 797, 798; People v Burnett-Hicks, 133 AD3d 773). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).

LEVENTHAL, J.P., AUSTIN, COHEN, BARROS and CHRISTOPHER, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Brown
122 A.D.3d 133 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2014)
People v. Little
127 A.D.3d 1235 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Burnett-Hicks
133 A.D.3d 773 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2015)
People v. Kupershmidt
2017 NY Slip Op 5850 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Bradshaw
961 N.E.2d 645 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Suitte
90 A.D.2d 80 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 1982)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2018 NY Slip Op 6271, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-reillo-nyappdiv-2018.