People v. Watson

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

People v. Watson

126 A.D.3d 731, 2 N.Y.S.3d 376

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

DecidedMarch 4, 2015

Docket2012-07180

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 126 A.D.3d 731 (People v. Watson) 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. Watson, 126 A.D.3d 731, 2 N.Y.S.3d 376 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2015).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), imposed September 28, 2011.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011 ]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his claim that his sentence was excessive. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

There is no relief that this Court can afford the defendant in connection with his request for a so-called “violent felony override” (see People v Lynch, 121 AD3d 717 [2014]). While the defendant’s conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.13) appears to render him ineligible for the temporary release program at issue (see 7 NYCRR 1900.4 [c] [2] [ii]), “[i]t is for [the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision], and not the court or the district attorney, to determine whether conviction under a particular section and subdivision disqualifies an inmate from eligibility” (People v Lynch, 121 AD3d at 718; see generally 7 NYCRR 1900.4).

Eng, P.J., Balkin, Dickerson, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, 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 a sentence of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Cohen, J.), imposed September 28, 2011.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011 ]; People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256-257 [2006]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his claim that his sentence was excessive. However, the sentence imposed was not excessive (see People v Suitte, 90 AD2d 80 [1982]).

There is no relief that this Court can afford the defendant in connection with his request for a so-called “violent felony override” (see People v Lynch, 121 AD3d 717 [2014]). While the defendant’s conviction of vehicular manslaughter in the first degree (Penal Law § 125.13) appears to render him ineligible for the temporary release program at issue (see 7 NYCRR 1900.4 [c] [2] [ii]), “[i]t is for [the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision], and not the court or the district attorney, to determine whether conviction under a particular section and subdivision disqualifies an inmate from eligibility” (People v Lynch, 121 AD3d at 718; see generally 7 NYCRR 1900.4).

Eng, P.J., Balkin, Dickerson, Chambers and Hinds-Radix, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

126 A.D.3d 731, 2 N.Y.S.3d 376, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/people-v-watson-nyappdiv-2015.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack