People v. Steppe
This text of People v. Steppe (People v. Steppe) 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
People v Steppe
2026 NY Slip Op 03987
June 24, 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
Aaron Steppe, appellant.
Supreme Court of the State of New York, Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department
Decided on June 24, 2026
2024-08920, (Ind. No. 70098/24)
Valerie Brathwaite Nelson, J.P.
Barry E. Warhit
Phillip Hom
Lisa S. Ottley, JJ.
Arza Feldman, Manhasset, NY, for appellant.
Letitia James, Attorney General, New York, NY (Matthew Keller and Margaret A. Cieprisz of counsel), for respondent.
DECISION & ORDER
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Edward T. McLoughlin, J.), rendered August 7, 2024, convicting him of conspiracy in the second degree and criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The record demonstrates that the defendant knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently waived his right to appeal (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248). The defendant's valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes appellate review of his contentions that the sentence imposed was excessive and constituted cruel and unusual punishment (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255; People v Nesbitt, 244 AD3d 1137, 1138; People v Myke, 232 AD3d 913; People v Esson, 225 AD3d 786, 787; People v Rodriguez, 82 AD3d 794, 795).
The defendant's remaining contention is without merit.
BRATHWAITE NELSON, J.P., WARHIT, HOM and OTTLEY, JJ., concur.
ENTER:
Darrell M. Joseph
Clerk of the Court
Links to or from other sites do not signify endorsement or relationship with them.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
People v. Steppe, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-steppe-nyappdiv-2026.