People v. Richardson

203 A.D.3d 1673, 162 N.Y.S.3d 813, 2022 NY Slip Op 01911
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedMarch 18, 2022
Docket159 KA 20-00079
StatusPublished

This text of 203 A.D.3d 1673 (People v. Richardson) 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. Richardson, 203 A.D.3d 1673, 162 N.Y.S.3d 813, 2022 NY Slip Op 01911 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2022).

Opinion

People v Richardson (2022 NY Slip Op 01911)
People v Richardson
2022 NY Slip Op 01911
Decided on March 18, 2022
Appellate Division, Fourth 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 March 18, 2022 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department
PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., CENTRA, LINDLEY, CURRAN, AND BANNISTER, JJ.

159 KA 20-00079

[*1]THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

v

ISZON C. RICHARDSON, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.


THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (ERIN A. TRESMOND OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

LAWRENCE FRIEDMAN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BATAVIA (ROBERT J. SHOEMAKER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.



Appeal from a judgment of the Genesee County Court (Charles N. Zambito, J.), rendered September 13, 2019. The judgment convicted defendant upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree and criminal contempt in the first degree.

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of burglary in the second degree (Penal Law § 140.25 [2]) and criminal contempt in the first degree (§ 215.51 [c]), defendant contends that his waiver of the right to appeal is invalid and his sentence is unduly harsh and severe. Even assuming, arguendo, that the waiver of the right to appeal is unenforceable, we perceive no basis in the record to exercise our power to modify the negotiated sentence as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice (see CPL 470.15 [6] [b]).

Entered: March 18, 2022

Ann Dillon Flynn

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

§ 431
New York JUD § 431
§ 140.25
New York PEN § 140.25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
203 A.D.3d 1673, 162 N.Y.S.3d 813, 2022 NY Slip Op 01911, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-richardson-nyappdiv-2022.