People v. Rojas

129 A.D.3d 747, 9 N.Y.S.3d 583
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in People v. Rojas. Read the opinion of the Court — 108 A.D.3d 576
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York·Decided June 3, 2015·No. 2014-01543·Published

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended resentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Morgenstern, J.), imposed March 17, 2014, on the ground that the amended resentence was excessive. The defendant’s notice of appeal from a resentence of the same court imposed January 28, 2014, is deemed a premature notice of appeal from the amended resentence imposed March 17, 2014 (see CPL 460.10 [1] [b]).

Ordered that the amended resentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 265 [2011]). However, the amended resentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Dillon, Leventhal, Hinds-Radix and LaSalle, JJ., concur.

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

People v. Rojas, 129 A.D.3d 747, 9 N.Y.S.3d 583 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

129 A.D.3d 747 (People v. Rojas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

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)