People v. Rountree
This text of People v. Rountree (People v. Rountree) 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
It appears you are using Adblock. Please disable Adblock to best experience our website.
Bureau Thomas J.K. Smith, State Reporter
Court Decisions Resources About
People v Rountree
2026 NY Slip Op 02135
April 8, 2026
Appellate Division, Second Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This decision is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.
The People of the State of New York, respondent,
v
Brandon Rountree, appellant. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Russ Altman-Merino of counsel), for appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on April 8, 2026
2023-05354, (Ind. No. 71252/22)
Angela G. Iannacci, J.P.
Paul Wooten
Lillian Wan
Donna-Marie E. Golia
Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.
Melinda Katz, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (Johnnette Traill and Nancy Fitzpatrick Talcott of counsel; Dallas S. Droz on the memorandum), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (David J. Kirschner, J.), imposed May 8, 2023, upon his plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
Contrary to the People's contention, the defendant did not validly waive his right to appeal the excessiveness of the sentence imposed (see People v Arriaza-Ortega, 216 AD3d 1175, 1175; People v Moye, 164 AD3d 698, 698). During the plea allocution, the Supreme Court expressly excluded a challenge to the excessiveness of the sentence imposed from the challenges foreclosed by the waiver of the right to appeal by telling the defendant that he was giving up his right to appeal, with the exception of challenging the excessiveness of his sentence (see People v Moye, 164 AD3d at 698).
Nevertheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
IANNACCI, J.P., WOOTEN, WAN, GOLIA and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court