From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

People v. Terrell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 6, 2013
111 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)

Opinion

2013-11-6

The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Terrick TERRELL, appellant.

Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel), for respondent.


Lynn W.L. Fahey, New York, N.Y., for appellant. Charles J. Hynes, District Attorney, Brooklyn, N.Y. (Leonard Joblove and Sholom J. Twersky of counsel), for respondent.

Appeals by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from two sentences of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Mondo, J.), both imposed February 22, 2012, upon his pleas of guilty, on the ground that the sentences were excessive.

ORDERED that the sentences are affirmed.

The defendant's purported waivers of his right to appeal were invalid ( see People v. Lopez, 6 N.Y.3d 248, 811 N.Y.S.2d 623, 844 N.E.2d 1145;People v. Collins, 104 A.D.3d 785, 785, 960 N.Y.S.2d 328;People v. Norfort, 101 A.D.3d 756, 954 N.Y.S.2d 499) and, thus, do not preclude review of his excessive sentence claims. However, the sentences imposed were not excessive ( see People v. Suitte, 90 A.D.2d 80, 455 N.Y.S.2d 675).

ENG, P.J., SKELOS, ROMAN, COHEN and HINDS–RADIX, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

People v. Terrell

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Nov 6, 2013
111 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
Case details for

People v. Terrell

Case Details

Full title:The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Terrick TERRELL, appellant.

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 6, 2013

Citations

111 A.D.3d 656 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013)
2013 N.Y. Slip Op. 7204
974 N.Y.S.2d 286

Citing Cases

People v. Taylor

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed. The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid (…

People v. Taylor

ORDERED that the sentence is affirmed. The defendant's purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid…