PETER, NANETTE R.L., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

PETER, NANETTE R.L., PEOPLE v

141 A.D.3d 1115, 33 N.Y.S.3d 918

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

DecidedJuly 1, 2016

DocketKA 14-00724

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 141 A.D.3d 1115 (PETER, NANETTE R.L., PEOPLE v) 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

PETER, NANETTE R.L., PEOPLE v, 141 A.D.3d 1115, 33 N.Y.S.3d 918 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered January 22, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of reckless endangerment in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25). We agree with defendant that her waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass her challenge to the severity of her sentence. “ ‘[N]o mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal [her] conviction *1116 that [she] was also waving [her] right to appeal the harshness of [her] sentence’ ” (People v Saeli, 136 AD3d 1290, 1291 [2016]). Although defendant signed a written appeal waiver that expressly encompassed a challenge to the sentence, County Court did not inquire before accepting the plea whether defendant understood the written waiver or whether she had even read the waiver (see id.; People v Banks, 126 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1159 [2015]). Nevertheless, we reject defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence.

Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is foreclosed by her valid waiver of the right to appeal the conviction and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Hicks, 128 AD3d 1358, 1359 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 999 [2016]). We reject defendant’s contention that this case falls within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).

Present— Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Curran, Troutman and Scudder, JJ.

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

Appeal from a judgment of the Steuben County Court (Joseph W. Latham, J.), rendered January 22, 2014. The judgment convicted defendant, upon her plea of guilty, of reckless endangerment in the first degree.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting her upon her plea of guilty of reckless endangerment in the first degree (Penal Law § 120.25). We agree with defendant that her waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass her challenge to the severity of her sentence. “ ‘[N]o mention was made on the record during the course of the allocution concerning the waiver of defendant’s right to appeal [her] conviction *1116 that [she] was also waving [her] right to appeal the harshness of [her] sentence’ ” (People v Saeli, 136 AD3d 1290, 1291 [2016]). Although defendant signed a written appeal waiver that expressly encompassed a challenge to the sentence, County Court did not inquire before accepting the plea whether defendant understood the written waiver or whether she had even read the waiver (see id.; People v Banks, 126 AD3d 1276, 1277 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 1159 [2015]). Nevertheless, we reject defendant’s challenge to the severity of the sentence.

Defendant’s challenge to the factual sufficiency of the plea allocution is foreclosed by her valid waiver of the right to appeal the conviction and, in any event, defendant failed to preserve that challenge for our review by failing to move to withdraw the plea or to vacate the judgment of conviction (see People v Hicks, 128 AD3d 1358, 1359 [2015], lv denied 27 NY3d 999 [2016]). We reject defendant’s contention that this case falls within the narrow exception to the preservation doctrine (see People v Lopez, 71 NY2d 662, 666 [1988]).

Present— Peradotto, J.P., Carni, Curran, Troutman and Scudder, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

141 A.D.3d 1115, 33 N.Y.S.3d 918, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peter-nanette-rl-people-v-nyappdiv-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack