People v. Rothmund

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Rothmund

133 A.D.3d 1366, 19 N.Y.S.3d 460

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedNovember 20, 2015

StatusPublished

This text of 133 A.D.3d 1366 (People v. Rothmund) 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. Rothmund, 133 A.D.3d 1366, 19 N.Y.S.3d 460 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered March 3, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his [1367]*1367sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Orleans County Court (James P. Punch, J.), rendered March 3, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree.

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

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of robbery in the first degree (Penal Law § 160.15 [3]). We agree with defendant that his waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass his challenge to the severity of the sentence because “no mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal his conviction that he was also waiving his right to appeal the harshness of his [1367]*1367sentence” (People v Pimentel, 108 AD3d 861, 862 [2013], lv denied 21 NY3d 1076 [2013]; see People v Maracle, 19 NY3d 925, 928 [2012]). Nevertheless, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe. Present — Smith, J.P., Peradotto, Lindley, Valentino and DeJoseph, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

133 A.D.3d 1366, 19 N.Y.S.3d 460, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-rothmund-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack