People v. Smith
This text of 2025 NY Slip Op 00238 (People v. Smith) 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
| People v Smith |
| 2025 NY Slip Op 00238 |
| Decided on January 15, 2025 |
| Appellate Division, Second 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 January 15, 2025 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS, J.P.
LINDA CHRISTOPHER
LAURENCE L. LOVE
PHILLIP HOM, JJ.
2023-01639
(Ind. No. 71948/21)
v
Shanilka Smith, appellant. Patricia Pazner, New York, NY (Robert C. Langdon of counsel), for appellant.
Eric Gonzalez, District Attorney, Brooklyn, NY (Leonard Joblove and Michael Bierce of counsel; Ali Fazal on the brief), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Raymond L. Rodriguez, J.), rendered September 8, 2022, convicting her of attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived her right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). The defendant's valid waiver of her right to appeal precludes appellate review of her contention that her conviction pursuant to Penal Law § 265.03(3) is unconstitutional under New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v Bruen (597 US 1) (see People v Johnson, 225 AD3d 453, 453-455; People v Miller, 166 AD3d 812, 813; People v Fisher, 121 AD3d 1013, 1013). The defendant's valid waiver of her right to appeal also precludes appellate review of her contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255; People v Lawrence, 184 AD3d 587, 587).
In light of our determination, we need not reach the defendant's remaining contentions.
CHAMBERS, J.P., CHRISTOPHER, LOVE and HOM, JJ., concur.
ENTER:Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2025 NY Slip Op 00238, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-smith-nyappdiv-2025.