excessive sentence claim in New York

2026However, the sentence imposed was not excessive ( see People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 ).

2026Accordingly, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim (<i>see</i> <i>People v Lawrence</i>, 227 AD3d 829 , 829; <i>People v Richards</i>, 224 AD3d 782 , 783).</p> <p>Nonetheless, the sentence imposed was not excessive (<i>see</i> <i>People v Suitte</i>, 90 AD2d 80 ).</p> <p>GENOVESI, J.P., FORD, VOUTSINAS and GOLIA, JJ., concur.</p> <p>ENTER:</p> <p>Darrell M.

2022Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Howard , 183 AD3d 640 ; People v Fuller , 163 AD3d 715 ).

2021Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Howard , 183 AD3d 640 ; People v Fuller , 163 AD3d 715 ).

2018The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid ( see People v Bradshaw , 18 NY3d 257, 267 ; People v Brown , 122 AD3d 133, 137 ; People v Johnson , 109 AD3d 1004 ) and, thus, does not preclude review of this excessive sentence claim.

2017The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 267 [2011]; People v Brown, 122 AD3d 133, 137 [2014]; People v Johnson, 109 AD3d 1004 [2013]), and, thus, the waiver does not preclude review of this excessive sentence claim.

2026Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude this Court's review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Platel , 187 AD3d 1216, 1216 ; People v Fuller , 163 AD3d 715 , 715).

2025Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude this Court's review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Platel , 187 AD3d 1216, 1216 ; People v Fuller , 163 AD3d 715 , 715).

2023Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Dixon , 184 AD3d 854, 855 ).

2022Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Habersham , 186 AD3d at 855 ; People v Dixon , 184 AD3d 854, 855 ).

2019Given the heinous nature of defendant's violent crimes, as well as defendant's lamentable behavior and lack of remorse at sentencing, it cannot be said that appellate counsel lacked a sound, strategic reason to forgo pursuing a discretionary reduction of defendant's sentence that had "little ... chance of success" ( Caban , 5 N.Y.3d at 152 , 800 N.Y.S.2d 70 , 833 N.E.2d 213 , quoting Stultz , 2 N.Y.3d at 287 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 431 , 810 N.E.2d 883 ). 4 ***293 To be sure, this Court has rejected the federal rule that a defendant must show a reasonable probability that counsel's errors changed the r

2019Given the heinous nature of defendant's violent crimes, as well as defendant's lamentable behavior and lack of remorse at sentencing, it cannot be said that appellate counsel lacked a sound, strategic reason to forgo pursuing a discretionary reduction of defendant's sentence that had "little ... chance of success" ( Caban , 5 N.Y.3d at 152 , 800 N.Y.S.2d 70 , 833 N.E.2d 213 , quoting Stultz , 2 N.Y.3d at 287 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 431 , 810 N.E.2d 883 ). 4 ***293 To be sure, this Court has rejected the federal rule that a defendant must show a reasonable probability that counsel's errors changed the r

2019Although the defendant has served his respective sentences, the question of whether the sentences imposed should be reduced is not academic, because those sentences may have potential immigration consequences ( see People v Broderick , 165 AD3d 972 ; People v Scott , 156 AD3d 913 ; People v Aisewomhonio , 131 AD3d 1177, 1178 ).

2018Considering all of the relevant circumstances of this case, including the potential immigration consequences to the defendant, we conclude that his sentence should be reduced by one day ( see People v Scott , 156 AD3d 913 ; People v Aisewomhonio , 131 AD3d 1177 ; People v Weston , [*2] 98 AD3d 1066 ; People v Bakare , 280 AD2d 679 ).

2019Given the heinous nature of defendant's violent crimes, as well as defendant's lamentable behavior and lack of remorse at sentencing, it cannot be said that appellate counsel lacked a sound, strategic reason to forgo pursuing a discretionary reduction of defendant's sentence that had "little ... chance of success" ( Caban , 5 N.Y.3d at 152 , 800 N.Y.S.2d 70 , 833 N.E.2d 213 , quoting Stultz , 2 N.Y.3d at 287 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 431 , 810 N.E.2d 883 ). 4 ***293 To be sure, this Court has rejected the federal rule that a defendant must show a reasonable probability that counsel's errors changed the r

2019Given the heinous nature of defendant's violent crimes, as well as defendant's lamentable behavior and lack of remorse at sentencing, it cannot be said that appellate counsel lacked a sound, strategic reason to forgo pursuing a discretionary reduction of defendant's sentence that had "little ... chance of success" ( Caban , 5 N.Y.3d at 152 , 800 N.Y.S.2d 70 , 833 N.E.2d 213 , quoting Stultz , 2 N.Y.3d at 287 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 431 , 810 N.E.2d 883 ). 4 ***293 To be sure, this Court has rejected the federal rule that a defendant must show a reasonable probability that counsel's errors changed the r

2019Although the defendant has served his respective sentences, the question of whether the sentences imposed should be reduced is not academic, because those sentences may have potential immigration consequences ( see People v Broderick , 165 AD3d 972 ; People v Scott , 156 AD3d 913 ; People v Aisewomhonio , 131 AD3d 1177, 1178 ).

2018Considering all of the relevant circumstances of this case, including the potential immigration consequences to the defendant, we conclude that his sentence should be reduced by one day ( see People v Scott , 156 AD3d 913 ; People v Aisewomhonio , 131 AD3d 1177 ; People v Weston , [*2] 98 AD3d 1066 ; People v Bakare , 280 AD2d 679 ).

2019Given the heinous nature of defendant's violent crimes, as well as defendant's lamentable behavior and lack of remorse at sentencing, it cannot be said that appellate counsel lacked a sound, strategic reason to forgo pursuing a discretionary reduction of defendant's sentence that had "little ... chance of success" ( Caban , 5 N.Y.3d at 152 , 800 N.Y.S.2d 70 , 833 N.E.2d 213 , quoting Stultz , 2 N.Y.3d at 287 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 431 , 810 N.E.2d 883 ). 4 ***293 To be sure, this Court has rejected the federal rule that a defendant must show a reasonable probability that counsel's errors changed the r

2019Given the heinous nature of defendant's violent crimes, as well as defendant's lamentable behavior and lack of remorse at sentencing, it cannot be said that appellate counsel lacked a sound, strategic reason to forgo pursuing a discretionary reduction of defendant's sentence that had "little ... chance of success" ( Caban , 5 N.Y.3d at 152 , 800 N.Y.S.2d 70 , 833 N.E.2d 213 , quoting Stultz , 2 N.Y.3d at 287 , 778 N.Y.S.2d 431 , 810 N.E.2d 883 ). 4 ***293 To be sure, this Court has rejected the federal rule that a defendant must show a reasonable probability that counsel's errors changed the r

2026Accordingly, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Clark , 217 AD3d 964 ).

2026Under the circumstances, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Hyman , 244 AD3d at 1001; People v Slade , 180 AD3d at 1074-1075 ).

2022Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate reivew of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Morrison , 199 AD3d 707, 708 ).

2022Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Habersham , 186 AD3d at 855 ; People v Dixon , 184 AD3d 854, 855 ).

2022In considering whether a sentence is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances ( see CPL 470.15[6][b]), "we exercise our discretion giving consideration to, 'among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation, and deterrence'" ( People v Kordish , 140 AD3d 981, 982-983 , quoting People v Farrar , 52 NY2d 302, 305 ; see Penal Law § 1.05; People v Diaz , 146 AD3d 803, 805-806 ; People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 ).

2022In considering whether a sentence is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances ( see CPL 470.15[6][b]), "we exercise our discretion giving consideration to, 'among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation, and deterrence'" ( People v Kordish , 140 AD3d 981, 982-983 , quoting People v Farrar , 52 NY2d 302, 305 ; see Penal Law § 1.05; People v Diaz , 146 AD3d 803, 805-806 ; People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 ).

2022In considering whether a sentence is unduly harsh or severe under the circumstances ( see CPL 470.15[6][b]), "we exercise our discretion giving consideration to, 'among other things, the crime charged, the particular circumstances of the individual before the court and the purpose of a penal sanction, i.e., societal protection, rehabilitation, and deterrence'" ( People v Kordish , 140 AD3d 981, 982-983 , quoting People v Farrar , 52 NY2d 302, 305 ; see Penal Law § 1.05; People v Diaz , 146 AD3d 803, 805-806 ; People v Suitte , 90 AD2d 80 ).

2022Nonetheless, the defendant's contention that the Supreme Court imposed a harsher sentence as punishment for exercising his right to a jury trial rather than accepting a plea offer prior to trial is unpreserved for appellate review ( see People v Douglas , 200 AD3d 795 , 798-799, citing People v Mujica , 146 AD3d 902, 903 ).

2020With respect to the judgment rendered under Indictment No. 15-00361, the defendant's excessive sentence claim is academic, as that sentence has already been served ( see People v Waddy , 240 AD2d 521, 521 ).

2020People v Gober , 139 AD3d 872, 872 ; People v Harper , 103 AD3d 665, 665 ).

2020Inasmuch as the record does not establish that the waiver limiting the scope of appeal was knowingly or voluntarily made, it cannot be enforced ( see People v Thomas , 34 NY3d at 566; People v Christopher B. , 184 AD3d 657 ), and, thus, it does not preclude appellate review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see e.g.

2020Thus, the purported waiver does not preclude this Court's review of the defendant's excessive sentence claim ( see People v Morocho , 184 AD3d 876 ).