People v. Steffens
This text of 2018 NY Slip Op 5702 (People v. Steffens) 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 Steffens |
| 2018 NY Slip Op 05702 |
| Decided on August 8, 2018 |
| 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 August 8, 2018 SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
RUTH C. BALKIN, J.P.
CHERYL E. CHAMBERS
SHERI S. ROMAN
JOSEPH J. MALTESE
FRANCESCA E. CONNOLLY, JJ.
2016-02085
v
Iveth Steffens, appellant. (S.C.I. No. 2896/15)
Paul Skip Laisure, New York, NY (Anders Nelson of counsel), for appellant.
Richard A. Brown, District Attorney, Kew Gardens, NY (John M. Castellano, Johnnette Traill, and William H. Branigan of counsel; Victoria Randall on the memorandum), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Dorothy Chin-Brandt, J.), imposed February 4, 2016, upon her plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.
ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed.
The defendant's purported waiver of her right to appeal was invalid (see People v Sanders, 25 NY3d 337; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133). The Supreme Court's limited colloquy, which lumped together the waiver of the right to appeal with a separate waiver of indictment, did not ensure the defendant's understanding of the distinction between the right to appeal and the other rights that are automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty (see People v Laboy, 153 AD3d 1363; see also People v Herring, 150 AD3d 1148, 1148; People v Contreras, 112 AD3d 649, 649). Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80).
BALKIN, J.P., CHAMBERS, ROMAN, MALTESE and CONNOLLY, 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
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2018 NY Slip Op 5702, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-steffens-nyappdiv-2018.