People v. Solomon

2019 NY Slip Op 9037
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedDecember 18, 2019
DocketInd. No. 869-16
StatusPublished

This text of 2019 NY Slip Op 9037 (People v. Solomon) 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. Solomon, 2019 NY Slip Op 9037 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2019).

Opinion

People v Solomon (2019 NY Slip Op 09037)
People v Solomon
2019 NY Slip Op 09037
Decided on December 18, 2019
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 December 18, 2019 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
ALAN D. SCHEINKMAN, P.J.
REINALDO E. RIVERA
RUTH C. BALKIN
JOHN M. LEVENTHAL, JJ.

2017-00598
(Ind. No. 869-16)

[*1]The People of the State of New York, respondent,

v

Edward King Solomon, appellant.


Del Atwell, East Hampton, NY, for appellant.

Timothy D. Sini, District Attorney, Riverhead, NY (Marion Tang of counsel), for respondent.



DECISION & ORDER

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (John B. Collins, J.), rendered November 30, 2016, convicting him of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant's purported waiver of the right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264; People v Keene, 160 AD3d 897, 898; People v Solizgalvez, 159 AD3d 838; People v Weber, 153 AD3d 946). The Supreme Court's colloquy at the plea allocution failed to sufficiently advise the defendant of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving it (see People v Himonitis, 174 AD3d 738).

The defendant's contention that he was entitled to a more lenient sentence because of a purported cooperation agreement, which does not appear on the record of the plea allocution, is unpreserved for appellate review (see People v Saxon, 28 AD3d 330, 330-331). In any event, the contention is without merit (see People v Arellano, 281 AD2d 553).

The defendant's remaining contentions are without merit.

SCHEINKMAN, P.J., RIVERA, BALKIN and LEVENTHAL, JJ., concur.

ENTER:

Aprilanne Agostino

Clerk of the Court



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

Related

People v. Weber
2017 NY Slip Op 6387 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2017)
People v. Bradshaw
961 N.E.2d 645 (New York Court of Appeals, 2011)
People v. Saxon
28 A.D.3d 330 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2006)
People v. Arellano
281 A.D.2d 553 (Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, 2001)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2019 NY Slip Op 9037, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-solomon-nyappdiv-2019.