People v. Jones, 2021 NY Slip Op 03868 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). · Go Syfert
People v. Jones, 2021 NY Slip Op 03868 (N.Y. App. Div. 2021). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
11 citation events (11 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Morris (nyappdiv, 2024-09-19)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Morris
N.Y. App. Div. · 2024 · confidence medium
Accordingly, his challenge to the severity of his sentence is moot ( cf. People v Vittengl , 195 AD3d 1233, 1234 [3d Dept 2021]; compare People v Woodruff , 219 AD3d 1017, 1017 [3d Dept 2023]; People v Turner , 217 AD3d 1260, 1261 [3d Dept 2023]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. VanSlyke
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Regardless of the validity of the appeal waiver, given that the records of the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision and defendant's own submissions confirm that defendant completed her one-year prison sentence in March 2020 and was discharged from parole supervision in March 2021, any claim regarding her sentence is moot ( see People v Vittengl , 195 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2021]; People v Parker , 156 AD3d 1059, 1060 [2017]; People v Cancer , 132 AD3d 1019, 1020 [2015]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boodrow
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Finally, defendant's challenge to his sentence is moot given that he has been discharged from both prison and parole supervision ( see People v Vivona , 199 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2021]; People v Vittengl , 195 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2021]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boodrow
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Finally, defendant's challenge to his sentence is moot given that he has been discharged from both prison and parole supervision ( see People v Vivona , 199 AD3d 1165, 1166 [2021]; People v Vittengl , 195 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2021]).
cited Cited as authority (rule) People v. Sanders
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · confidence medium
Hence, defendant's claim that the sentence imposed is harsh and excessive is moot ( see People v Vittengl , 195 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2021]).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Davidson
N.Y. App. Div. · 2022 · signal: compare · confidence medium
Footnote 3: The People are incorrect in arguing that defendant's challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive is moot based upon his release to parole ( see People v Guyett , 137 AD3d 1329, 1329 [2016]; compare People v Vittengl , 195 AD3d 1233, 1234 [2021]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
People
v.
Jones
110288.
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 17, 2021.
2021 NY Slip Op 03868
Published
People v Jones (2021 NY Slip Op 03868)
People v Jones
2021 NY Slip Op 03868
Decided on June 17, 2021
Appellate Division, Third Department
Published by New York State Law Reporting Bureau pursuant to Judiciary Law § 431.
This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the Official Reports.


Decided and Entered:June 17, 2021

110288

[*1]The People of the State of New York, Respondent,

v

Jermaine M. Jones, Appellant.


Calendar Date:May 7, 2021
Before:Garry, P.J., Lynch, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ.

Shane A. Zoni, Public Defender, Hudson (Bryan Bergeron of counsel), for appellant.

Paul Czajka, District Attorney, Hudson (Kevin B. Thiemann of counsel), for respondent.



Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Columbia County (Nichols, J.), rendered March 8, 2018, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of assault in the second degree.

Defendant pleaded guilty to a superior court information charging him with assault in the second degree and he was required to waive the right to appeal. County Court sentenced defendant to seven years in prison, to be followed by two years of postrelease supervision. Defendant appeals.

Appellate counsel seeks to be relieved of his assignment of representing defendant on the ground that there are no nonfrivolous issues that can be raised on appeal. Upon our review of the record and counsel's brief, we disagree. We find there is at least one issue of arguable merit with respect to the validity of defendant's appeal waiver that may potentially impact other issues that may be raised, such as the severity of the sentence (see People v Thomas, 34 NY3d 545, 566 [2019]; People v Barrales, 179 AD3d 1313, 1314-1315 [2020]). Accordingly, without passing judgment on the ultimate merit of this issue, we grant counsel's application for leave to withdraw and assign new counsel to address this issue and any others that the record may disclose (see People v Beaty, 22 NY3d 490, 492-493 [2014]; People v Stokes, 95 NY2d 633, 638-639 [2001]; see generally People v Cruwys, 113 AD2d 979, 980 [1985], lv denied 67 NY2d 650 [1986]).

Garry, P.J., Lynch, Pritzker, Reynolds Fitzgerald and Colangelo, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the decision is withheld, application to be relieved of assignment granted and new counsel to be assigned.