You are here: / / CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN ‘EXCESSIVE SENTENCE’...
, ,

CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN ‘EXCESSIVE SENTENCE’ APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT’S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department noted that Criminal Procedure Law 450.10(1), which purports to prohibit an “excessive sentence” appeal after a guilty plea, is unconstitutional in that it limits the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division, in violation of the NYS Constitution. But the court went on to find that defendant's waiver of appeal was valid and precluded contesting his sentence:

CPL 450.10(1) provides a criminal defendant with the right to appeal a judgment “unless the appeal is based solely upon the ground that a sentence was harsh or excessive when such sentence was predicated upon entry of a plea of guilty and the sentence imposed did not exceed that which was agreed to by the defendant as a condition of the plea.” As the People acknowledge, the Court of Appeals has held that this provision is unconstitutional because “it imposes a limitation or condition on the jurisdiction of the Appellate Division of Supreme Court in contravention of NY Constitution, article VI, § 4(k)” … . * * *

Here, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant understood that the appeal waiver was separate and distinct from those rights automatically forfeited upon a plea of guilty and that the defendant was voluntarily relinquishing that right in consideration for the promised sentence … . Furthermore, the record of the plea proceeding demonstrates that the defendant received an explanation of the nature of the right to appeal and the consequences of waiving that right … . People v Swen, 2018 NY Slip Op 05949, Second Dept 8-29-18

CRIMINAL LAW (CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/CONSTITUTIONAL LAW (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/APPEALS (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/WAIVER OF APPEAL (CRIMINAL LAW, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))/SENTENCING (APPEALS, CPL 450.10 (1), WHICH PURPORTS TO PROHIBIT AN 'EXCESSIVE SENTENCE' APPEAL AFTER A GUILTY PLEA, IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL, DEFENDANT'S WAIVER OF APPEAL, HOWEVER, WAS VALID (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
Evidence of Gang Membership Properly Admitted to Show Motive for Assault
THE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE DID NOT PASS TO THE FOREIGN (DELAWARE) CORPORATION AFTER A MERGER AND ACQUISITION OF NEW YORK BUSINESS ENTITIES; THEREFORE THE NEW YORK PARTIES, IN THEIR CLAIMS AGAINST THE ATTORNEYS WHO REPRESENTED THEM IN THE TRANSACTION, CAN SEEK ACCESS TO THE ATTORNEYS’ PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATIONS CONCERNING THE TRANSACTION (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANT ENTITLED TO PERMISSIVE ADVERSE INFERENCE JURY INSTRUCTION BASED UPON THE PEOPLE’S LOSS OR DESTRUCTION OF EVIDENCE REQUESTED BY THE DEFENDANT (SECOND DEPT).
Defense Counsel Should Have Been Present During Exchange Between Judge and Juror Which Resulted in Disqualification of Juror/Judge Should Have Disclosed Reason for Disqualification
PLAINTIFF’S TWICE FILING FOR BANKRUPTCY TOLLED THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR OVER FOUR YEARS, FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS THEREFORE TIMELY (SECOND DEPT).
THE CRITERIA FOR THE HARSH REMEDY OF ATTACHMENT WERE NOT MET (SECOND DEPT).
Fact that Driver’s Negligence Was Deemed “Sole Proximate Cause” of Passenger’s Injury Did Not Warrant the Dismissal of Claims Against the Other Driver Involved in the Collision
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE LATE NOTICE OF CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DEFENDANT HAD ALREADY CONDUCTED A 50-h HEARING AND THEREFORE HAD NOTICE OF THE ESSENTIAL FACTS WITHIN ONE MONTH OF THE EXPIRATION OF THE 90-DAY TIME LIMIT.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

RECKLESS ENDANGERMENT AND RECKLESS ASSAULT CONVICTIONS AGAINST THE WEIGHT OF... RESUMPTION OF QUESTIONING THE NEXT MORNING DID NOT REQUIRE REPEATING THE MIRANDA...