People v. Tristen S.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Tristen S.

2017 NY Slip Op 667, 147 A.D.3d 787, 45 N.Y.S.3d 810

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

DecidedFebruary 1, 2017

Docket2015-08774

StatusPublished

This text of 2017 NY Slip Op 667 (People v. Tristen S.) 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. Tristen S., 2017 NY Slip Op 667, 147 A.D.3d 787, 45 N.Y.S.3d 810 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2017).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J.), imposed August 14, 2015, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Camacho, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for robbery in the second degree (three counts), on the ground that the amended sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, and thus does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 141 [2014]). However, the amended sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Hall, Cohen, LaSalle and Connolly, 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 an amended sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Wong, J.), imposed August 14, 2015, revoking a sentence of probation previously imposed by the same court (Camacho, J.), upon a finding that he had violated a condition thereof, upon his admission, and imposing a term of imprisonment upon his previous adjudication as a youthful offender for robbery in the second degree (three counts), on the ground that the amended sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the amended sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid, and thus does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 141 [2014]). However, the amended sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

Eng, P.J., Hall, Cohen, LaSalle and Connolly, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2017 NY Slip Op 667, 147 A.D.3d 787, 45 N.Y.S.3d 810, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-tristen-s-nyappdiv-2017.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack