People v. Jones, 118 A.D.3d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). · Go Syfert
People v. Jones, 118 A.D.3d 1026 (N.Y. App. Div. 2014). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
2 citation events across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: People v. Boney (nyappdiv, 2015-07-29)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boney
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 144-145 [2014]; People v Jones, 118 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2014]) and those contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief (see People v Huggins, 105 AD3d 760, 761 [2013]; People v Devodier, 102 AD3d 884, 884 [2013]; see generally People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) People v. Boney
N.Y. App. Div. · 2015 · confidence medium
The defendant’s valid waiver of his right to appeal precludes review of his contention that the sentence imposed was excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 144-145 [2014]; People v Jones, 118 AD3d 1026, 1027 [2014]) and those contentions raised in his pro se supplemental brief (see People v Huggins, 105 AD3d 760, 761 [2013]; People v Devodier, 102 AD3d 884, 884 [2013]; see generally People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-267 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
The People of the State of New York
v.
Kisha Jones
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 25, 2014.
118 A.D.3d 1026
Dickerson, Eng, Lott, Mastro, Miller.
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Murphy, J.), imposed March 29, 2011,[*1027] upon her plea of guilty, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, her waiver of the right to appeal was knowing, voluntary, and intelligent (see People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Milton, 111 AD3d 765, 766 [2013]; People v McCray, 103 AD3d 666, 667 [2013]). Since the defendant’s valid waiver of her right to appeal encompasses the waiver of the right to invoke the Appellate Division’s interest of justice jurisdiction to modify sentences, review of the defendant’s contention that the sentence imposed was excessive is precluded (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 255 [2006]).

Eng, EJ., Mastro, Dickerson, Lott and Miller, JJ., concur.