RAVARINI, ANTHONY J., PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

RAVARINI, ANTHONY J., PEOPLE v

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

DecidedJune 29, 2012

DocketKA 11-00846

StatusPublished

This text of RAVARINI, ANTHONY J., PEOPLE v (RAVARINI, ANTHONY J., 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

RAVARINI, ANTHONY J., PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

843 KA 11-00846 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY J. RAVARINI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Mark A. Violante, A.J.), rendered April 6, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [2]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence because County Court failed to advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of incarceration (see People v Newman, 21 AD3d 1343; People v McLean, 302 AD2d 934; cf. People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737), and there was no specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver (cf. People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6 NY3d 852). Nevertheless, on the merits, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 29, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

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

SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

843 KA 11-00846 PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANTHONY J. RAVARINI, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

DAVID J. FARRUGIA, PUBLIC DEFENDER, LOCKPORT (MARY-JEAN BOWMAN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

MICHAEL J. VIOLANTE, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, LOCKPORT (LAURA T. BITTNER OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Niagara County Court (Mark A. Violante, A.J.), rendered April 6, 2011. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of attempted assault in the second degree.

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

Memorandum: On appeal from a judgment convicting him upon his plea of guilty of attempted assault in the second degree (Penal Law §§ 110.00, 120.05 [2]), defendant contends that the waiver of the right to appeal is not valid and challenges the severity of the sentence. Although the record establishes that defendant knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waived the right to appeal (see generally People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256), we conclude that the valid waiver of the right to appeal does not encompass the challenge to the severity of the sentence because County Court failed to advise defendant of the potential periods of incarceration or the potential maximum term of incarceration (see People v Newman, 21 AD3d 1343; People v McLean, 302 AD2d 934; cf. People v Lococo, 92 NY2d 825, 827; People v Hidalgo, 91 NY2d 733, 737), and there was no specific sentence promise at the time of the waiver (cf. People v Semple, 23 AD3d 1058, 1059, lv denied 6 NY3d 852). Nevertheless, on the merits, we conclude that the sentence is not unduly harsh or severe.

Entered: June 29, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

RAVARINI, ANTHONY J., PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ravarini-anthony-j-people-v-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack