You are here: / / WAIVER OF APPEAL OF THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL OF...

WAIVER OF APPEAL OF THE UNDERLYING OFFENSE DOES NOT PRECLUDE APPEAL OF THE SENTENCE IMPOSED FOR A SUBSEQUENT VIOLATION OF PROBATION; SENTENCE DEEMED HARSH AND EXCESSIVE (FOURTH DEPT).

The Fourth Department determined defendant’s sentence was harsh and excessive and noted a waiver of appeal for the underlying offense does not apply to an appeal of the sentence imposed for a subsequent violation of probation:

… [A]s defendant contends and the People correctly concede, even if defendant executed a valid waiver of the right to appeal at the underlying plea proceeding, it would not encompass her challenge to the severity of the sentence imposed following her violation of probation … . We agree with defendant that the sentence is unduly harsh and severe. In light of defendant’s young age, minimal criminal history, and prior efforts to address her substance abuse issues, as well as the nonviolent nature of the underlying crimes and the relatively minor infractions for which she was discharged from her treatment program thereby resulting in her violation of probation, we modify the judgment as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice … by reducing the sentence on each count to a determinate term of imprisonment of three years, to be followed by the two years of postrelease supervision imposed by County Court, with the sentences remaining concurrent. People v Griffin, 2020 NY Slip Op 05645, Fourth Dept 10-9-20

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO VACATE HIS CONVICTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED; DEFENSE COUNSEL DID NOT ATTEMPT TO SECURE THE TESTIMONY OF A WITNESS WHO WOULD TESTIFY THAT HER BOYFRIEND, WHO USED TO BE THE BOYFRIEND OF THE MURDER VICTIM, CONFESSED TO KILLING THE VICTIM (FOURTH DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF ASSUMED THE RISK OF FALLING FROM A CLIMBING WALL (FOURTH DEPT).
Allegations In Motion to Suppress Insufficient to Warrant Hearing
TOWN DID NOT TAKE THE REQUISITE HARD LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF A WALMART STORE, NEGATIVE DECLARATION ANNULLED.
POSSESSION OF A FORGED INSTRUMENT CONVICTION REVERSED, NO FOUNDATION FOR TWO CATEGORIES OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE (FOURTH DEPT).
Escaped Calf Furnished the Condition or Occasion for Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Presence in the Road When She Was Struck, But Was Not the Proximate Cause of Plaintiff’s Decedent’s Being in the Road
Action Challenging a City Resolution to Sell City Property to an Identified Purchaser Is a Challenge to an Administrative Act and Is Therefore Governed by the Four-Month “Article 78” Statute of Limitations
BOTH THE GRAND JURY AND THE TRIAL JURY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED ON THE DEFENSE OF INNOCENT POSSESSION OF A WEAPON, INDICTMENT DISMISSED.

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 © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

BURGLARY SECOND COUNT DISMISSED AS A LESSER INCLUSORY COUNT OF THE TWO BURGLARY... INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OF SEXUAL CONTACT; RISK LEVEL REDUCED FROM LEVEL TWO TO...