People v. Slizewski

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Slizewski

120 A.D.3d 1270, 991 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2014 NY Slip Op 06112, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6063

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

DecidedSeptember 10, 2014

Docket2013-00778

StatusPublished

This text of 120 A.D.3d 1270 (People v. Slizewski) 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. Slizewski, 120 A.D.3d 1270, 991 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2014 NY Slip Op 06112, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6063 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J), imposed January 7, 2013, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

A defendant who has validly waived the right to appeal cannot invoke this Court’s interest of justice jurisdiction to obtain a reduced sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]). Here, however, this Court is not precluded from exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction because the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The record does not demonstrate that the defendant “grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing” (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; see People v Pelaez, 100 AD3d 803, 804 [2012]; People v Jacob, 94 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2012]; cf. People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]). Therefore, “notwithstanding the written appeal waiver form, it cannot be said that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal” (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at 267; see People v Elmer, 19 NY3d 501, 510 [2012]; People v Vasquez, 101 AD3d 1054 [2012]).

Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the period of postrelease supervision imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, EJ., Skelos, Leventhal, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.

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

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Brennan, J), imposed January 7, 2013, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

A defendant who has validly waived the right to appeal cannot invoke this Court’s interest of justice jurisdiction to obtain a reduced sentence (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]). Here, however, this Court is not precluded from exercising its interest of justice jurisdiction because the defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid. The record does not demonstrate that the defendant “grasped the concept of the appeal waiver and the nature of the right he was forgoing” (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; see People v Pelaez, 100 AD3d 803, 804 [2012]; People v Jacob, 94 AD3d 1142, 1143 [2012]; cf. People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]). Therefore, “notwithstanding the written appeal waiver form, it cannot be said that defendant knowingly, intelligently and voluntarily waived his right to appeal” (People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d at 267; see People v Elmer, 19 NY3d 501, 510 [2012]; People v Vasquez, 101 AD3d 1054 [2012]).

Nevertheless, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the period of postrelease supervision imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, EJ., Skelos, Leventhal, Roman and Duffy, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

120 A.D.3d 1270, 991 N.Y.S.2d 895, 2014 NY Slip Op 06112, 2014 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 6063, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-slizewski-nyappdiv-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack