VILLAFANE, JEAN PIERRE, PEOPLE v

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

VILLAFANE, JEAN PIERRE, PEOPLE v

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

DecidedJune 15, 2012

DocketKA 10-01857

StatusPublished

This text of VILLAFANE, JEAN PIERRE, PEOPLE v (VILLAFANE, JEAN PIERRE, 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

VILLAFANE, JEAN PIERRE, PEOPLE v, (N.Y. Ct. App. 2012).

Pincite

Opinion

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

677 KA 10-01857 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEAN PIERRE VILLAFANE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KAREN RUSSO-MCLAUGHLIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered July 6, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first 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 burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [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 Supreme 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 15, 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

677 KA 10-01857 PRESENT: SMITH, J.P., FAHEY, PERADOTTO, SCONIERS, AND MARTOCHE, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JEAN PIERRE VILLAFANE, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

THE LEGAL AID BUREAU OF BUFFALO, INC., BUFFALO (KAREN RUSSO-MCLAUGHLIN OF COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.

FRANK A. SEDITA, III, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, BUFFALO (ASHLEY R. SMALL OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (Christopher J. Burns, J.), rendered July 6, 2010. The judgment convicted defendant, upon his plea of guilty, of burglary in the first 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 burglary in the first degree (Penal Law § 140.30 [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 Supreme 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 15, 2012 Frances E. Cafarell Clerk of the Court

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

VILLAFANE, JEAN PIERRE, PEOPLE v, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/villafane-jean-pierre-people-v-nyappdiv-2012.

Opinion

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack